A Comparison of The Emotional Indicators On The House-Tree-Person

Andrews University
Digital Commons @ Andrews University

Dissertations
Graduate Research
2003
A Comparison of the Emotional Indicators on the

House-Tree-Person Drawings and the KineticHouse-Tree-Person Drawing
Denise Ann Stoddard
Andrews University
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations

Part of the Other Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
Stoddard, Denise Ann, "A Comparison of the Emotional Indicators on the House-Tree-Person Drawings and the Kinetic-House-TreePerson Drawing" (2003). Dissertations. Paper 718.
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted
for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact
repository@andrews.edu.
Thank you for your interest in the
Andrews University Digital Library

of Dissertations and Theses.
Please honor the copyright of this document by

not duplicating or distributing additional copies
in any form without the authors express written
permission. Thanks for your cooperation.
Andrews
University
School of Education
A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON

THE HOUSE-TREE-PERSON DRAWINGS AND THE
KINETIC-HOUSE-TREE-PERSON DRAWING
A Dissertation
Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
by
Denise Ann Stoddard
August 2003
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3098164
UMI
UMI Microform 3098164
Copyright 2003 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

A dissertation
presented in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
by
Denise Ann Stoddard
APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:
Chair:
Nancy J. Carbonell
D e a n X School of Ed^cat ion

James Jeffery
Membe
_ ^ . .1 (?Member:
Dennis E. Waite
.
Date approved
TTv^TTri nor* * ( /
External Examiner:^Candice
Hollingsead
ABSTRACT

by
Denise Ann Stoddard
Chair:
Dr. Nancy J. Carbonell
ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH

Dissertation
Andrews University
School of Education
Title: A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON THE

HOUSE-TREE-PERSON DRAWINGS AND THE
Name of researcher:
Denise Ann Stoddard
Name and degree of faculty chair: Nancy J. Carbonell,
Ph.D.
Date completed: August 2003
Problem
Robert Burns,
author of the Kinetic-Family-
Drawing, -has devised a projective test called the

Kinetic-House-Tree-Person drawing.
He has taken the
House-Tree-Person projective technique and changed the

instructions to include all of the figures on one page and
also to include an action.
In Burns's book on the K-H-T-P
he claimed that his drawing gives a better clinical picture

of the subject than the H-T-P.
However,
there is no
research that compares the two tests for clinical

information.
Method
The H-T-P and K-H-T-P were administered to 204
college students 18 years of age and older.
These students
came from one university in Michigan and one in Illinois.

They were a non-clinical sample,
in therapy.
meaning that they were not
Emotional indicators were extracted from the
drawings, and then the indicators were analyzed using the

Chi Square statistic called the McNemar test.
Results
There were 499 different emotional indicators found
on the drawings,
si gnificant.
and 108 indicators were found to be
There were 74 indicators that were found
significantly more often on the H-T-P than on the K-H-T-P.

There were 34 indicators that were found significantly more
often on the K-H-T-P than on the H-T-P.
The H-T-P had
indicators in the categories of general drawing

characteristic,
house,
tree,
and person.
The K-H-T-P had
indicators in all of those categories and also in actions,

styles,
and s y m b o l s .
The H-T-P had more than twice as many
indicators as the K - H - T - P .
The category that had the most
indicators for both tests was the house,
with 56% of the
indicators on the H-T-P and 32% on the K - H - T - P .
Conclusions
The H-T-P and K-H-T-P differ in the emotional
indicators that are evoked from the drawings.
With the
H-T-P having more than twice as many indicators as the

K-H-T-P,
it is shown to be a stronger projective technique
in eliciting information about the subject.

similar in name,
Although
the tests are not interchangeable.
test has been shown to have merit,
Each
and they could both be
used in a psychological assessment battery to add the most

amount of information to the clinical picture.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF A B B R E V I A T I O N S . ............................
ACKNOWLED GM ENT S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
v
vi
vii
Chapter
I.
II.
INTRODUCTION...................................
The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the S t u d y .......................
Significance of the Study ................
Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Hypothesis .......................
Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . .
Delineation of the Research Problem . . .
Delimitations ..............................
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Organization of the Study . . . . . . . .
1
5
5
6
12
12
12
13
14
17
17
REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .....................
19
Draw-A-Family Drawing ....................

The K - F - D .........................
Research With the K-F-D . . . . . . . . .
Origination of the H - T - P . . . . . . . . .
Early Research With the H - T - P ...........
H-T-P Research on Abuse . . . . . . . . .
H-T-P Research With College S tu d e n t s . . .
Miscellaneous H-T-P Res e a r c h ..............
The K-H-T-P
...........
Emotional I n d i c ato rs . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter Summary ...........................
III. METHODOLOGY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Description of the R e s e a r c h ..............

Population
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Selection of the Sample
.........
iii
19
23
27
38
41
44
46
49
53
60
65
67
67
67
68
Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.......................
Instrumentation .
H-T-P Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . .
K-H-T-P Reliability .......................
Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pro ced ur es
Collection of the D a t a . . . . . . . . . .
Data E n t r y ..................................
Null Hypothesis and A n a l y s i s . . . . . . .
Chapter Summary
..................
IV.
V.
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
. . . . . . . . .
68
70
70
72
72
75
77
78
79
80
81
Demographic Data of the S a m p l e . . . . . .

Emotional Indicators Found in the Sample.
Testing the H y p o t h e s i s . . . . . . . . . .
Presentation of the Fi ndings..............
Chapter Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . .
81
83
84
86
114
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................
115
S u m m a r y ....................................
Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . .
Overview of Related Li ter atu re.........
Purpose of the S t u d y ...............
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
S a m p l i n g ................................
Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . .
Research Question . . . . .
Hypothesis
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Results of the Hypothesis Testing . . .
Discussion
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Test C o m p a r i s o n ....................
Findings on the H-T-P . . . . . . . . .
Findings on the K - H - T - P ................
Implications
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations ...........................
115
115
117
120
120
120
121
121
122
122
123
123
126
128
135
136
Appendixes
A. PARTICIPANT CONSENT F O R M .............
B. 499 EMOTIONAL INDICATORS
FOUND IN THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCE LIST.
VITA.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iv
139
141
185
200
LIST OF TABLES
1.
Checklist for Emotional Indicators
78
2.
Sample Distribution by Gender by

First D r a w i n g .............
.
82
3.
Sample Distribution by Age Range
82
4.
Data on Emotional Indicators by

Protocol .......................
83
5.
6.
7.
8.
Data on Emotional Indicators by

T6 St
85
Emotional Indicators Found Significantly

.............
More Often on the H-T-P
88
Emotional Indicators Found Significantly

More Often on the K-H-T-P
...........
105
Summary of Emotional Indicators by

Category ................................
113
LIST OF ABREVIATIONS
D-A-F
Draw-A-Family
D-A-P
Draw-A-Person
FRI
Family Relations Indicator
H-F-D
Human-Figure-Drawing
H-T-P
House-Tree-Person
K-F-D
Kinetic-Family-Drawing
K-H-T-P
Kinetic-House-Tree-Person
K-S-D
Kinetic-School-Drawing
PDI
Post Drawing Interrogation
S-D-R-S
Semantic Differential Rating Scale
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to gratefully acknowledge everyone
who has helped me to make this dissertation a reality.
Thank you to my chair,
Dr. Carbonell,
members Dr. Futcher and Dr. Waite.
and committee
I also thank Dr.
Habenicht for giving me the idea to do this type of

research.
I'm very grateful to all of the support staff
and faculty who have helped me to get this far.
It
has been a great team effort.

A special thank-you to my three children whose
encouragement to get a Ph.D. has never ended.
you Pete,
Kati,
Thank
and Joseph Stoddard.
I want to thank the spiritual realm for the

strength,
energy,
guidance,
and blessings that I have
received along the way.

I can't thank everyone enough for the help and
encouragement you have shown to get me to this point.
The emotional indicators that I have evoked
from this experience are defined as gratitude,
and love.
vii
faith,
CHAPTER
INTRODUCTION
This introductory chapter presents information

on the problem,
the purpose of the study,
significance of the study,

the research question,
definition of terms,
delimitations,
the
the theoretical framework,
the research hypothesis,
delineation of the research problem,
limitations,
and organization of the
study.
The Problem
The use of a drawing of the family as a projective
technique was introduced by W. C . Hulse in 1951.
called the Draw-A-Family
(D-A-F)
test.
It was
Children were
asked to draw their family so that the drawing could be

used to help in the formulation of a d i a g n o s i s .
(1951)
Hulse
stated that the drawing invoked important
information about the relationships with siblings and

parents,
the tension in the home atmosphere,
child's role in the family constellation.
and the
DiLeo
(1970)
stated that the drawing of a family was highly colored

by the child's feelings as opposed to what they know.
Their response was mostly emotional,
telling us how they
felt about themselves and their family.
While analysis
was done of the distribution of the figures over the

paper,
the size of the figures,
the relation of each
figure to each other based on size and proximity,

shading,
coloring,
strength of pencil strokes,
the
sequence in which the figures were drawn,
and omissions
and exaggerations of body features,
(1951,
Hulse
1952)
emphasized that the "gestalt," or the overall concept of

the total picture,
was of main concern for learning about
the dynamics of the drawer.
Hulse
apart from the completed drawing,

verbalization before,
during,
(1951) believed that,

the behavior and
and after the drawing
provide information that was therapeutically revealing as

well.
It was noted that when children were asked to draw
their family,
the result was usually a row of unrelated
figures which showed no interaction

Burns and Kaufman
(1970,
1972)
(Burns,
1987).
believed they could
improve upon this projective technique by creating what

they called the Kinetic Family Drawing
(K-F-D)
which
asked children to draw all of the members of their family

doing something,
stick figures.
and making sure to not draw cartoon or

It was hoped that the addition of
movement would give information about self-concept and
interpersonal relations
(Burns & Kaufman,
1972),
and
would contribute in showing relationships and

interactions,
available
thus increasing the diagnostic information
(Knoff & Prout,
In 1987,
Burns
1985).
(1987)
attempted to make the same
type of improvement on the House-Tree-Person drawings

devised by Buck in 1948.
Burns called his technique the
Kinetic-House-Tree-Person drawing
(K-H-T-P).
While the
H-T-P has each figure drawn on a separate sheet of paper,

the K-H-T-P has all three figures drawn on one sheet of
paper with the instructions to include some sort of
action.
Burns stated that the K-H-T-P goes beyond what
the H-T-P can provide in clinical data
(Burns,
1987).
Not only was the H-T-P limited because it was

standardized in psychiatric settings with a clinical
population
(Burns,
1987),
but he felt that by requesting
that the examinee draw the house,
tree,
and the person on
the same page along with a kinetic component,
a whole new
wealth of interpretive information would be obtained.

Since Robert Burns presented his theory in a book written
in 1987,
no studies have been conducted to compare these
two projective tests.

Projective techniques provide an important source
of clinical information.
They have been a valuable part
4
of test batteries for clinicians and school psychologists
over the years,
seen as revealing important aspects of an
individual's personality in a drawing.

understanding of,
and insight into,
They provide an
the individual
through creative expression of raw emotion

1980).
(Tokuda,
Projective methods have routinely uncovered
unconscious determinants of self-expression that possibly

could not be manifested in direct communication.
It is
believed that verbal communication is more subject to

conscious manipulation than graphic projection
(Machover,
1949) .
Projectives can show what the individual m a y not
be aware of.
By design,
they are a non-threatening
technique that taps the deeper psychological functioning

of a person instead of the self-report tests that rely on
conscious material
(West,
1998).
In many cases,
drawings
have revealed the individual's emotional and psychosexual

maturity,
anxiety,
neurotic conflicts,
schizophrenia.
guilt,
aggression,
paranoid features,
fear,
aspirations,
and even
Prognosis and treatment of a personality
problem or mental illness have been accurately made

solely on the drawings of a patient
the field of art therapy,
(Machover,
1949).
projective drawings are
considered to be one of the most useful tools for
In
eliciting information and providing insight

Rosal,
1993).
(Neale &
Since projective techniques provide
valuable information to the clinician,
further research
on these two projective tests is needed.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to compare the
House-Tree-Person
Person
(K-H-T-P)
(H-T-P)
and the Kinetic-House-Tree-
for clinical data.
The research
extracted and compared the emotional indicators found on

the H-T-P drawings to those found on the K-H-T-P
drawings.
The H-T-P is an established test that is
widely used and respected
(Burns,
1987).
The K-H-T-P
does not have that type of reputation and no research on

the test was found.
If Burns's claims are correct,
the
K-H-T-P should reveal more emotional indicators than what

is found on a set of H-T-P drawings.
Comparing the
results of the two tests should show which drawings

contain more clinical data and whether the kinetic
component and interaction of the figures would add more
clinical data to the results.
Significance of the Study

More research is needed on the usefulness of the
K-H-T-P and how it compares to the H-T-P.
If the one
6
drawing of the K-H-T-P could take the place of three
drawings,
take less time to administer and interpret,
and produce more information about the drawer's

personality,
then clinicians may want to use it more
than the H-T-P.
Although Burns's book on the K-H-T-P
was written in 1987,
it is hardly mentioned in the
research literature.
It is possible that Burns did
for the H-T-P what he did for the D-A-F,

research bears this out,
but until
one will not really know.
Many of the sources referenced in this research

are very old.
That is because the bulk of projective
work that was done decades ago is still being used

today,
and very little recent research has been
conducted.
Current research is needed in the area of
proj ective drawings to further the work that laid the

foundation for the interpretation of dr awi ng s.
Theoretical Framework
Projection is a concept that came from
psychoanalytic theory.
Freud
(1912)
defined projection
as a defense mechanism that was used to defend against

disturbing impulses.
Lustful,
aggressive,
or other
unacceptable impulses were seen as being possessed by

other people and not oneself when using projection.
The
impulse was still manifested but in a way that was less
threatening to the individual and which reduced the

anxiety.
Freud believed that the defenses were always in
operation;
the intensity of their use fluctuating within
the personality yet never ceasing.
He further stated that
defense mechanisms operated on the unconscious level,

making one unaware of their use and how much they are
used.
Projection was seen to help the ego like itself
better and prevent its destruction

However,
(Freud,
1936).
projection carried to extremes could become a
very serious problem leading to full-blown paranoia

(Kahn, 2002).
Klein
(1963)
stated that through
projection the picture of the external world was colored

by internal factors.
She suggested that projection was
responsible for investing the world with positive and

negative emotions resulting in a subjective experience
that had psychological meaning to that individual.
Chodorow
(1999)
stated that the process of projection
could elicit early relations,
situations,
and people;
it
could use the individual's current situation or any

important relationship or experience.
Freud and Jung both possessed an interest in the
interrelationships of art,
(Malchiodi,
1998).
Freud
symbols,
(1900)
and personality
observed that images
represented forgotten or repressed memories and that
these symbols were likely to emerge through dreams or art

expressions.
Freud believed that universal human
conflicts and neuroses motivated artists to artistic

creation.
Freud's observation inspired and eventually
confirmed the belief that art expression could be a route

to understanding the inner world of the psyche.
Jung
Freud,
(1954)
saw images in a different way from
placing importance on them in terms of universal
meanings.
Jung was interested in the psychological
content of art expressions and,
unlike Freud who never
asked his patients to draw their dream images,

encouraged his patients to draw.
Jung often
With the increasing
prominence of the work of Freud and Jung and the growing

interest in the art of people with mental illness,
projective tests of personality were developed
(Malchiodi,
1998).
psychologists,
Devised primarily by clinical
these tests became a standard part of a
battery of psychological tests after 1945
(Fine,
1979).
The theory behind projective tests is that when an

individual is given an ambiguous stimulus they will
project their needs,
stimulus
desires,
(Schultz & Schultz,
fears,
and values onto the
1998).
When working with projective techniques there are

certain fundamental principles that need to be stated in
order to understand the scope and limitations of these

techniques.
Korner
(1965)
concerning projectives:
spelled out three assumptions
The first is that all behaviors
are expressive of an individual's personality.
From the
least significant to the most significant behavior,
these
manifestations tell something about the individual.

Banking on this assumption,
any technique that elicits
some form of behavior is reflecting the individual's

personality at work.
The second assumption is that people give
information that they will not or cannot otherwise give.
Projective techniques generally involve the presentation
of ambiguous material,
and the individuals choose what
kind of meaning to attach to it.

wishes,
fears, preoccupations,
They
hopes,
disclose their
and aspirations in
this process without knowing what they are revealing.

The third assumption of projective techniques is
called psychic determinism.
response,
technique,
or drawing,
This is when a story,
elicited from a projective
is not seen as a chance event.
Individuals
produce personally meaningful material from all the

experiences and associations that they have had in their
life.
Their choices of what they reveal from a
projective technique have significance to them.
10
Buck
(1948)
stated that a conventional
definition of a projective technique is a stimulus

presented to a subject so ambiguous or so unstructured
that the meaning found within it must come from within
the subject.
Buck said that while a subject is asked to
draw a house,
a tree,
what house,
tree,
and a person,
they are not told
or person to draw.
The subject must
choose what they will draw from their experiences and

perceptions of the world.
Because of this,
Buck felt
that the H-T-P qualified as a projective technique.
He
stated that the H-T-P was based on the assumption that an

individual's drawing included aspects of their inner
world.
The personality strengths and weaknesses
displayed by the subject included the degree to which

their inner resources could be invoked to handle
psychodynamic conflicts
Buck
(Buck,
1992).
(1948) phrased this postulate by saying
that "the subject was presented with stimuli which were

completely familiar,
but at the same time so completely
non-specific that in order to respond thereto the subject

had to project"
(p. 320).
the drawings of a house,
Buck further postulated that

tree,
and person were to be
regarded as self-portraits since subjects were believed

to draw characteristics that they felt were essential.
11
The interpretation of these "significant" details
provides information concerning,
subject's wishes,
fears,
desires,
among other things,

aspirations,
the
and
confl ic ts.
Burns
(1987)
believed that the K-H-T-P revealed a
visual metaphor that was unlimited by words because of

the interaction and relationship of the figures.
indicated that when subjects drew a tree,
He
they were
revealing their individual transformation processes.

When drawing a person,
they were reflecting the self or
ego functions interacting with the tree to create a

larger metaphor.
The house depicted the physical aspects
of the subject that created an even larger metaphor in

relation to the other figures.
In this study the two types of drawings,
and K-H-T-P,
the H-T-P
were examined for their projective content.
Since projective data reveal the inner world and

personality of the subject,
the projective drawing that
can produce more projective data will supply the

clinician with more information about the subject.
comparison of the projective content on the H-T-P and the

K-H-T-P would reveal which type of drawing would be most
beneficial for eliciting emotional indicators for
therapeutic in terventions.
12
Research Question
This study examined one question:
Does the
occurrence of emotional indicators found on the H-T-P

drawings differ significantly from those found on the
K-H-T-P drawing?
Research Hypothesis
One hypothesis was produced from the one question:
There is no significant difference in the frequency of
occurrence of emotional indicators that are found in
the H-T-P drawings and the K-H-T-P drawings.
Definition of Terms
The following list of terms are defined as they
are used in this research study.
Anchoring:
(1972)
A style defined by Burns and Kaufman
where all figures are drawn within one inch of a
single edge of the paper.

Attachment:
Two or three figures that are touching.
One example is the tree touching the house.

style was defined by Burns and Kaufman
Compartmentalization:
This type of
(1972).
A style of drawing where
there is intentional separation of figures by straight

lines.
Edging:
A style of drawing where all figures are
13
drawn on two or more edges of the paper.
Emotional Indicator
(E.I .):
A drawing
characteristic that has been proven to be tied with a

particular feeling or personality trait present in the
drawer.
An example of this would be drawing teeth in the
mouth of a person.
Teeth have been proven to be
associated with anger or hostility.
Emotional indicators
are the term used for all things looked for on a drawing
such as compartmentalization,
small head,
underlining an individual,
and interaction.
Encapsulation:
One or more figures
are enclosed by encircling lines.

by Burns and Kaufman
(but not all)
This style was defined
(1972).
Folding Compartmentalization:
Folding the paper
into segments and drawing individual figures in these

segments.
Interaction:
figures drawn,
The attachments,
distances,
order of
and sizes of the figures in relation to
each other.
Delineation of the Research Problem

In order to compare the K-H-T-P to the H-T-P,
the
two projective tools had to be put on an equal footing.

When Burns compared the two in his book
(Burns,
1987),
stated that the instructions for the H-T-P were to draw
he
14
the figures on separate sheets of paper.
mention the post-drawing interrogation
He did not
(PDI)
that
had been a part of the instructions since the test was

first devised
(Buck,
1948).
Although the manual for
the H-T-P drawings has been revised over the years

1992),
(Buck,
there is much more to administering the H-T-P than
what Burns described.
Apart from all of the questions
that were asked on the PDI,
a drawing of a person of the
opposite gender than what was originally drawn was

requested,
a sun was requested to be drawn in the picture
if not already present,

was requested.
and an H-T-P drawn with crayons
It should be noted that none of these
were mentioned in Burns's comparisons of the two drawings

in his book.
In order to fairly compare the two tests,
the
analysis of the drawings was based on the interpretation

manuals for the H-T-P,
the K-H-T-P,
and the K-F-D.
The
manuals provided a list of the emotional indicators to

look for on the two drawings.
No PDI was conducted on
the H-T-P since it did not form part of the comparison

done on the two tests in Burns's book
(1987).
Delimitations
In order to quantify and measure each drawing,
was not feasible to include interpretations by the
it
15
examiner.
Only the emotional indicators found on the
drawings were used in the comparison between the K-H-T-P

and the H-T-P.
Interpretations could be different from
one examiner to the next without a firm basis from which

to form conclusions.
This could lead to the projection
of the examiner onto the projective material.

might suffice in clinical applications,
appropriate for research.
book
While it
it does not seem
The foreword of Dr. Burns's
(1987) was written by Louise Bates Ames,
Ph.D.,
chief psychologist at the Gesell Institute of Child

Development,
and formerly president of the Society for
Projective Techniques.
Here Dr. Ames suggests that the
material be used as inspirational rather than taken as

gospel.
Dr. Ames also went on to say that Dr. Burns's
fascinating but unusual interpretations should be thought

of as possibilities instead of guarantees,
and hoped that
some of the interpretations would not be taken literally

as they were unsubstantiated.
Since Dr. Burns's book
cautions,
(1987)
came with such
this research concentrated only on what was
visible in each drawing without considering subjective

interpretation.
Another reason for not looking at
interpretations of the picture was that Dr. Burns said

that the examples provided in his book were about people
16
who were in therapy
(Burns,
1987).
More information was
obtained about the individuals through interviews and

time spent in therapy,
which meant that when
interpretations were made,
there was much more data about
the individual upon which to base it on.

hand,
in research,
On the other
the examiner does not know the
subjects and spends only the necessary time with them to

acquire the drawings and pertinent information.
The population used in this research was college
students.
This population gave an adequate baseline on
what the drawings look like when drawn by a college-age

adult group.
Choosing adults who were functioning
satisfactorily in a college program should reflect more

normality and growth than pathology in the drawings.
The
intent of this research was not to necessarily find

pathology in the drawings,
but to do a comparison of the
emotional indicators on the two projective tests.

Evaluation of the use of color was not
investigated.
Although chromatic drawings have been
interpreted for both the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P by their

respective authors,
all drawings for this research were
completed using black-lead pencils only.
Nor was
research conducted in the area of calculating an I.Q.

from the findings of the d r a w i n g s .
17
The developmental stages that Burns listed in his
book
(Burns,
1987)
were not used in this research.
Burns's developmental stages were defined by the

emotional indicators found in the drawing and,
since
emotional indicators were already being extracted from

the drawings in this research,
the developmental stage of
a figure would not add to the findings.

were examined for projective material,
developmental analysis.
The drawings
not for any
All drawings were investigated
only for their emotional indicators in order to compare

the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P and find which drawing would
elicit more clinical data.
Limitations
It was assumed that the subjects in the sample
understood the instructions of the projective drawings,
followed them,
and drew in an honest fashion.
The
research was based on the sample that was studied and

cannot be generalized to the population.
Organization of the Study

Chapter 1 presented the problem,
study,
significance of the study,
research question,
terms,
purpose of the
theoretical framework,
research hypothesis,
definition of
delineation of the research problem,
18
delimitations,
and limitations.
Chapter 2 will focus on
the literature relevant to the Draw-A-Family drawing,

K-F-D,
research with the K-F-D,
early research with the H-T-P,
the
origination of the H-T-P,

H-T-P research with abuse,
H-T-P research with college students, miscellaneous H-T-P

research,
the K-H-T-P,
emotional indicators,
and a
summary.
Chapter 3 will discuss the methods used to
carry out the research including the description,

population,
reliability,
procedures,
sample,
v a r ia ble s, instrumentation,
K-H-T-P reliability,
pilot study,
collection of the data,
hypothesis and analysis,
H-T-P
data entry,
null
and a summary.
Chapter 4 will provide the presentation of the

data that was divided into the sections of the
demographic data of the sample,
found in the sample,
the emotional indicators
testing the hypothesis,
presentation of the findings,
and a summary.
the
Chapter 5
will conclude the research with a summary of the study,

discussion of the findings,
implications of the study,
and recommendations for future re search.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature review in this chapter includes the

following t o p i c s : Draw-a-family drawing,
the K-F-D,
research with the K-F-D,
origination of the H-T-P,
research with the H-T-P,
H-T-P research on abuse,
early
H-T-P
research with college students, miscellaneous H-T-P

research,
the K-H-T-P,
and a
summary.
Draw-A-Family Drawing
There are few references to the Draw-A-Family
drawing in the literature,
disagree in name,
and of those found,
the materials used,
instructions given.
Hulse
(1951,
they
and in the
1952)
provided 8H x 12
inch white paper, black and colored pencils,
and allowed
the child to draw freely before they were asked to draw

their family.
Reznikoff and Reznikoff
12-inch paper,
pencil,
his/her family,
used a 9 x
and asked the child to draw
including him/herself,
the drawing as a Family Drawing T e s t .

(1969)
(1956)
furnished paper and pencil,
and referred to
Shearn and Russell
and would simply ask
19
20
the child to draw his/her own family,
him/herself,
including
or to draw a picture of a family.
Shearn and
Russell said that they actually preferred the latter

directions because it appeared to give the subject more
latitude in making the drawing.
In addition,
they asked
the parents of the identified patient to draw a family.

DiLeo
(1970)
gave his patients green-tinted
letter-sized paper and a red crayon.
Children were then
instructed to draw a picture of their family,
and the
drawings were referred to as "Drawing the Family."
Deren
(1975) provided an 8^ by 11 sheet of paper and asked each

member to draw a family.
All authors asked the child to
identify the figures that were drawn so that there was no

question as to whom the figures represented in the
drawing.
Hulse
(1952)
obtained several hundred drawings
done by children who were brought to parent-child

guidance clinics, private practice,
social agencies.
institutions,
and
The drawings were done during initial
psychiatric interviews.
Hulse stated that the value of
the drawing was to communicate the conscious and

unconscious material about the child and their family,
which would have not otherwise been obtained in an
interview.
This material was an aid in the diagnostic
21
evaluation of the child and family relations.
Another use for the drawings was to show the
improvement that a child had made after receiving therapy
(Hulse,
1951).
Hulse claimed that the difference in the
drawings of families by a child entering a guidance

clinic,
and after 22 months of therapy,
was striking.
Severe pathological distortions in human figures had

completely disappeared,
showing that the child was on the
way to recovery.
Reznikoff and Reznikoff
(1956)
conducted a study of
100 second-grade children to ascertain whether there were

differences in family drawings according to gender,
or economic status.
race,
They found that the drawings of boys
and girls differed in that boys drew themselves in the

middle of the family group more often,
and tended to omit
the mother figure or draw her without arms.
The drawings
of White and Black children differed only in that Black

children omitted fingers from their figures and
frequently omitted siblings.
When drawings were sorted
according to economic classification,
children from low-
income families often omitted the mother figure,
drew an
older sibling as the largest figure of the family,

made themselves the smallest figure.
their families suspended in air,
and
They often drew
and frequently drew the
22
father figure without any arms.
Shearn and Russell
(1969)
extended the family
drawing technique by obtaining a drawing from each parent

along with their child's drawing.
They included the
family drawing in a battery of tests administered by a

psychologist when a child was admitted to a residential
treatment center for emotional disturbance.
The adult
drawings were obtained during an interview with each of

the parents.
family,
Parents were asked to draw their present
not their family of origin.
In this way there
would be three representations of the same family where

the perspective of the child, mother,
compared.
Comparing the parents'
and father could be
drawings to that of the
child was reported to provide important information on

the family dynamics concerning family relationships and
parent-child interaction.
Shearn and Russell
(1969)
stated that the utility of this technique varied from

case to case, but usually provided useful information to
be explored further in therapy.
Deren
(1975)
conducted a study where she collected
239 Draw-A-Family drawings from a total of 91 families.

The ethnic distribution was 30% Black,
30% Puerto Rican,
30% White,
(primarily Latin
and 10% classified as Other
and Central American b ack gro un ds).
The hypothesis was
23
that the Black subjects would draw a larger mother figure
than the father,
since matriarchy predominates in many
Black families; the Puerto Rican subjects would draw a

larger father figure,
since they usually have a
patriarchal family structure;
the low SES children
subjects would omit family members from their drawings

because of sibling rivalries and h ostilities; and married
couples,
with no children,
their family d r a w i n g .
would include children in
All hypotheses were found to be
correct except for the Puerto Rican group, which did not
tend to draw a larger father f i g u r e .
enough,
Interestingly
the most, extreme scores on the size and detail
measures were obtained by females.
This may be
indicative of a greater sensitivity or awareness of sexrole differences in f e m a l e s .

After the Deren article in 1975,
the Draw-A-Family
projective technique disappeared from the lite ra tur e.
It
was surprising that a simple projective technique that

was professed to be so helpful in obtaining clinical data
would drop out of the journal literature completely.
Its
disappearance might be indicative of the rising use and

popularity of the K-F-D at that t i m e .
The K-F-D
In 1970 Burns and Kaufman published a test called
24
the Kinetic-Family-Drawing
(K-F-D)(Burns & Kaufman,
1970).
The directions were to draw everyone in your
family,
including yourself,
doing something and not to
draw cartoon or stick figures.

dynamics,
The K-F-D revealed family
and personal and interpersonal information.
The addition of an action was found to produce more

meaningful data about the interrelationships within the
family
(Burns,
1982).
Burns and Kaufman
(1972) produced
an interpretative manual defining the actions,
styles,
and symbols that are found in the K-F-D.

Burns
(1987) believed that one's "style" of
drawing was comparable to one's defense mechanisms.
He
stated that his work with children found styles with the
very disturbed and a lack of styles with a normal
population.
He believed that the lack of a style seemed
to show a diminished need for defending

1972).
(Burns & Kaufman,
Burns defined the K-F-D styles as
compartmentalization,
of the page,
encapsulation,
lining at the bottom
underlining individual figures,
lining at the top of the page,

compartmentalization.
edging,
and folding
Definitions of the terms that are
not self-explanatory are provided in chapter 1 above.

Symbols are the variables included in a drawing.
Buck
(1948)
stressed that symbols could have a unique
25
meaning to the drawer,
and that it was important to ask
the drawer about the significance of the symbol rather

than impose a meaning from theory or interpretation.
Burns and Kaufman
(1972)
stated that "it is generally
agreed that the unconscious speaks through symbols"
(p.
v i ) , but they also gave a warning about the ove r

interpretation and misinterpretation of the meaning of
symbols.
They believed it is important for the clinician
to consider the totality of the individual when

interpreting symbols, weighing alternate and sometimes
incompatible interpretations.
While Burns and Kaufman
(1972) warn about the oversimplification in the use of

symbols,
they found,
in their experience,
that certain
symbols do recur and have consistent association with the

physical history and clinical material of a client
warranting their importance.
Burns and Kaufman
(1972)
suggested that action is
the motion implied to each family member in the drawing.

The action is what each family member is doing.
can be more passive like sitting,
the sky,
reading,
Actions
and looking at
or they can be more active like skating, mowing,
or playing baseball.
Burns and Kaufman
(1970)
stated
that the addition of movement to a drawing should reveal

more about the child's feelings as it relates to their
26
self-concept and also the interpersonal relationships
found in the family.
Burns
(1982)
reported that when a D-A-P,
H-T-P,
and K-F-D were all drawn on the same day, by the same
person,
the self tended to be very different in the K-F-D
than the other drawings.

(1949),
He believed,
as did Machover
that the D-A-P represented an expression of the
self in the environment.
Burns
(1982)
felt that perhaps
the self in a K-F-D was an expression of the nuclear

self.
The nuclear self represents an expression of the
self formed in early life
(Burns,
1982).
The D-A-P self
was believed to be similar to the H-T-P person,

how the self conducts itself in the environment,
depicting
while
the K-F-D self reflected how the person felt about other
family members and the ability to get along with the
other family members,
which could be very different from
the environmental self.
Burns also stated that when a
mental age was derived from a D-A-P and a K-F-D self,
the
K-F-D self score was significantly that of a younger

mental age than the D-A-P self score,
drawings were not similar.
Burns
suggesting that the
(1982)
suggests that
the K-F-D self denotes an inner self shaped by the early

years of family life,
and the D-A-P and H-T-P person
depicts a layer of personality which covers up the more
27
basic image of the individual.
Research With the K-F-D

O'Brien and Patton
(1974)
conducted a study of 104
children from two public schools,

Each subject completed a K-F-D,
Esteem Inventory,
Scale.
Grades 4 through 8.
the Coopersmith Self-
and the Children's Manifest Anxiety
Teachers completed the School Behavior Checklist
on each child.
The study constructed an objective
scoring system for the K-F-D by measuring aspects of the

K-F-D and then using these measurements to predict
anxiety level,
self-esteem,
and classroom behavior.
scoring method measured inter-figure distance,

size,
The
figure
the presence of barriers between human figures,
activity level,
and orientation of each major figure.
The results of all of the instruments were used to come

up with predictive equations for the constructs being
measured.
The findings showed that the important
predictor for anxiety was the activity level of the

father.
The more action and strength the child
attributed to the father,

the child.
Also,
the more anxiety exhibited by
according to this study,
the two most
important variables for the prediction general selfconcept were the activity level of the father and the
direction in which the self figure was facing.
The
28
greater the activity level of the father,
general self-concept of the child.
the less the
The more the self
figure faces away from the other figures or into the

drawing,
the greater the general self-concept.
General self-concept refers to the general self

esteem of the child. The child's school and academic
self-concept was predicted by the number of figures in
the drawing.
The larger the family,
school and academic self-concept.
the greater the

School and academic
self-concept refers to the child's self-esteem in how

they see themselves as a student at school.
The two most
important predictors for a child's aggressive behavior

were the number of siblings and the relative size of the
child and siblings compared to the size of the parents.
The more siblings placed in the drawing,
aggressive behavior.
the less the
The larger the children were drawn
in comparison to the parents,
the more the aggression in ,
the child.
Elin and Nucho
(1979) devised an objective scoring
system to assess a child's self-concept using the K-F-D.

Their scoring system is based on the premise that
positive interaction among family members is essential
for a healthy self-concept.
The authors concentrated on
the amount and quality of interaction of family members,
29
the use of space in defining psychological boundaries,
and the emotional tone of the drawing.
Forty-eight K-F-Ds were drawn by fourth- and
fifth-grade students from a public elementary school.
Three persons,
who were trained in the scoring of K-F-Ds,
served as judges for the purpose of establishing

reliability.
A high inter-scorer reliability was found
with the 48 K - F - D s .
The Personal Adjustment Inventory by
Carl Rogers was used for assessing the validity of the

scoring,
and the correlation of scores between the
inventory and the drawings was significant when the 48

K-F-Ds were examined.
The scoring system was able to
differentiate the drawings made by children with high

and low self-concepts as measured by the Personal
Adjustment Inventory.
The authors felt that their study
lends credibility to the K-F-D's sensitivity of

understanding a child's f eel i n g s .
Sims
(1974)
Relations Indicator
compared the K-F-D to the Family

(FRI).
The FRI is a standardized
picture projection technique which has actions depicted

on c a r d s .
The FRI is designed to investigate the
interrelationships found in a family.
Subjects in this
study were 100 emotionally disturbed children ranging

from ages 5 to 15.
A K-F-D and FRI were administered to
30
each subject.
A scoring method was devised for comparing
the two techniques.

as positive,
Each figure in the K-F-D was scored
negative,
or neutral.
received the same type of scoring.

measures were compared.
The FRI responses

The scores on the two
The drawings and the responses
were significantly related in the area of the subject's

relations with the mother and father,
siblings.
Sims
but not for
(197 4) concluded that the K-F-D was a
valid technique to investigate disturbed parental

r e la ti ons .
McPhee and Wegner
(197 6) conducted a study to
verify Burns's definition of styles.
They collected 162
drawings from elementary school children,

of five judges analyzed these drawings.
and a panel
The results
showed that styles were not associated with disturbed

children but were present to a greater extent in the
drawings of adjusted children.
Thompson
(1975)
found several trends in her study
of the K-F-D of 197 suburban adolescents,

18.
ages 13 through
Males were drawn engaging in destructive actions
more often than females.
Mothers were most often
depicted engaging in constructive actions.
Females 13
and 14 years of age drew themselves as the largest member

of the family,
while at ages 17 and 18 the father is
31
drawn as the largest figure.
Older sisters are most
often drawn as being involved with other family members.

It was believed that males ages 16 or older,
constricted drawings,
who drew
appeared to have more social
disturbance than other male adolescents whose drawings

were more expansive.
Females showed more expansive
drawings at all ages when compared with males.

Reynolds
(1978)
for using the K-F-D.
developed a quick reference guide

The guide is meant for use by
psychologists who are familiar with projective drawing

interpretation and with the K-F-D.
Reynolds stated that
the work required to thoroughly interpret projective

drawings is very time-consuming to even the experienced
psychologist.
He claimed that there is a savings of the
clinician's time, when using his reference guide,
because
the guide will alert the examiner to the more important

aspects of the drawing.
While he cautioned that
individual signs should not be interpreted as absolute or

in isolation,
and that the best use of the
viewed in its gestalt,
K-F-D is when
he stated that his reference list
of 32 indicators should serve as a quick reference for

clinical evaluation of the K-F-D.
Reynolds said that the
list was devised from his clinical work with emotionally

disturbed children.
His list included physical
32
proximity,
barriers between figures,
relative height of
respondent,
fields of force,
pencil erasures,
extensions,
description of figure's actions,
arm
I
positions of
figures with respect to safety, missing essential body

parts,
rotation of figure,
shading or crosshatching,
compartmentalization of figures,
compartmentalization,
folding
underlining of individual figures,
lining at the bottom of the page,
lining at the top of
the page,
encapsulation,
evasions,
number of household members,
of page,
line quality,
stick figures
edged placement of figures,

figure(s)
asymmetric drawing,
(all figures),
jagged or sharp fingers,
figures,
excessive attention to details,
Hackbarth,
motionless or
ordering of figures,
buttons,
isolation of self,
on back
toes,
teeth,
bizarre
transparencies,
and anchoring.
Murphy,
and McQuary
(1991)
designed a
study to examine possible differences in K-F-D scores

between sexually abused children,
identified as sexually abused,
group.
children who were not
and the mothers of each
Thirty children between the ages of 6 and 13, who
were reported as sexually abused in the past 2 years,

made up one group.
This group had been sexually abused
by an older family member.
The other group comprised 30
children between the ages of 6 and 11 who were considered
33
as possessing normal adjustment by their teachers.
All
children and their mothers were asked to draw a K-F-D.

Five counselors rated the K-F-Ds on a scale from 0 to 4.
The higher the score,
environment.
the more positive the family
The significant results obtained from the
ratings showed that the K-F-D could discriminate between

sexually abused children and the comparison group of
children.
The abused children drew less desirable family
situations than their mothers,
while these mothers drew
less desirable family situations than the mothers of the

comparison group.
Cho's dissertation
408 Chinese children.
(1987)
studied the K-F-Ds of
A stratified random sample was
obtained of 204 males and 204 females from Taiwan,

4 to 6.
Grades
A correlation design was used to determine the
validity of the K-F-D using the Semantic Differential

Family Scale measuring self-concept and parent/child
relationship.
Cho found that the K-F-D was a useful
instrument to use with Chinese children when their

cultural differences were taken into consideration.
The most valid K-F-D variables for measuring a
child's self-concept appeared to be the facial expression
of self,
the relative size of self,
barriers between father and self.
and the types of

For measuring a
34
child's perception of his relationship with his mother,
the most valid K-F-D variables were the facial
expressions of the father and mother,
of the father,
the mother.
the eye completion
and the distance between the father and
K-F-D variables that measured the
father/child relationship were the facial expression of

the father,
child,
the types of barriers between father and
and the eye completion of the father.
Chuah's dissertation
(1992)
studied the K-F-Ds of
Chinese-American children to learn about their family

relationships.
She also compared those K-F-Ds to
Caucasian-American children's K-F-Ds to see if

differences existed.
The children in the sample were in
Grades 3 to 6, with 146 being Chinese-American children

and 71 Caucasian-American children.
Chuah found that the K-F-Ds of the ChineseAmerican children reflected the Chinese culture.
Parents
playing with children or families engaged in an activity

together were rare,
family was low.
and the communication level in the
The most common parental actions found
in these drawings of Chinese-American families were of

the mother cooking and the father reading a paper.
Girls
drew themselves doing homework and boys drew themselves

playing ball.
The Caucasian-American families were shown
35
as more communicative and interactive,
of the children were very similar.
while the actions
The girls drew
themselves reading or eating while the boys drew

themselves playing ball.
Chuah also found that more
recent immigrant Chinese families seem to have more

Chinese traditional values than Chinese-American families
who have lived in the USA for a longer period of time.
Chuah
(1992)
suggested that the K-F-D revealed the values
of children and their cultures.

Shaw
(1992)
conducted a correlation study where
findings from the K-F-D were compared to the findings of

the Semantic Differential Rating Scale
(S-D-R-S).
The
purpose was to validate the K-F-D as a clinical

instrument for describing the role of self in the family
for Black children and the perceptions of family
relationships.
The sample population was 420 Black
children from Grades 1 through 6.

Shaw found that a significant relationship between
the K-F-D and the S-D-R-S existed.
The K-F-D was found
to be a valid instrument in learning how Black children

see themselves and their families. Almost half of the
drawings revealed a positive impression of the family,
and nearly one third of the drawings showed the father
missing.
The mothers generally were not perceived as the
36
dominant figure in the family,
threatening or rejecting.
nor were they shown as
Father, mother,
and self
figures were portrayed as working independently of each

other.
One or two barriers often existed between
figures,
implying psychological distancing.
Families
were viewed as stable and not stress producing.
The
subject's drawings indicated a good self-concept where

they did not feel a need to strive for dominance or
attention in the family.
The K-F-D did not appear to be
effective in revealing cooperation,
togetherness,
or the
importance of religion in the Black families.

Gregory
(1992)
studied the K-F-Ds and S-D-R-Ss of
52 Native American children and a comparison group of 104

Caucasian children.
The purpose of the research was to
validate the K-F-D as a useful instrument for the Native

American population and to compare the K-F-Ds of the two
groups of children.
Gregory obtained a significant
correlation between the two instruments to deem the K-F-D

as a valid instrument for use with Native American
children when culture and mainstream societal trends are
considered in the population.
Differences existed in the
way each group of children drew their families.
The
Native American children's K-F-Ds showed mothers in less

communicating ways and facing their husband less often
37
than the Caucasian children's dr awi ngs .
Fathers drawn by
the Caucasian children were more communicative and

cooperative than those drawn by the Native American
ch il d r e n .
position,
K-F-D variables for physical characteristics,

distance,
barriers,
same for each g r o u p .
actions,
and style were the
Gregory's study revealed there were
more similarities than differences between the two groups

of children.
Rodgers
(1992)
looked at the sexual content of
H-F-Ds and K-F-Ds of children ages 6 through 18.
Her
purpose was to define developmental age differences based

on sexual symbols,
actions,
and themes in the d r a w i n g s .
The sample was composed of children in public and private

schools and residential treatment centers in southwestern
Michigan.
There were 560 children from schools and 81
from the treatment c e n t e r . Her results suggested that it

is a normal process of child maturation to include sexual
content in their d r a w i n g s .
Children 6 to 8 years included the highest number
of sexual characteristics in their drawings,
to 15 years included the least,
children 9
and children 16 years
included more than the 9 to 15 year g r o u p .
There
appeared to be little difference between males and

females in the sexual content of their d r a w i n g s .
The
38
study also revealed that children who have had past
sexual experiences,
as either a victim or perpetrator,
usually have drawings that are very sexual or asexual.

They either include much sexual detail or draw very basic
drawings with little detail and many omissions.
Origination of the H-T-P

The House-Tree-Person drawing was published in
1948 by John N. Buck.
tree,
Buck used the drawing of a house,
and person as a projective technique to help
understand the inner world of an individual.
While he
further developed and refined the test over the years

(Buck,
1949,
1951),
Buck found that clients of all ages
were familiar with the common objects of a house,
tree,
and person and offered the least amount of resistance to

draw them than other experimental items.
"Yet these
common objects are rich with symbolic meaning which

reveal the sensitivity, maturity,
efficiency,
flexibility,
and the degree of integration of a subject's
personality"
(Buck,
1948, p. 319).
The H-T-P is not a test of artistic ability but of

projection.
There are two parts to the H-T-P.
part is the drawing of the house,
tree,
The first
and person.
The
individual drawing the H-T-P is believed to draw only the

characteristics that they regard as essential.
In other
39
words,
there is some meaning behind what they have drawn.
It is also significant what they omit from a drawing,

which could reflect an issue that they refuse to deal
with.
The examiner must watch the subject as they draw
because it is also important to see if there are any

areas of the drawing that are of unusual concern to them.
This would be shown by excessive erasures,
coming back
to the same area of the drawing again and again,
and
spending a lot of time in one area of the drawing.

The second part of the H-T-P is the post-drawing
interrogation
(PDI) where 68 structured questions are
asked of the d r a w e r .
The PDI gives the drawer the
opportunity to define,
been drawn.
describe,
and interpret what has
It is also relevant to note what the drawer
refuses to comment upon.
It is postulated that the two
parts of the H-T-P together provide information

concerning the subject's needs,
conflicts
(Buck,
194 8) .
strivings,
fears,
and
Buck emphasized the importance
of having the subject interpret the drawings because the

standard meaning of certain symbols may not apply to this
particular drawing.
An individual may attach unique
meaning to a detail that would be known only through

interrogation of the d r a w i n g s . Buck's scoring system
measures quantitative and qualitative aspects of each
40
drawing,
and various emotional indicators identified in
one drawing can be looked for in the other drawings to

confirm or rule out the hypothesis.
Wenck
(1977)
stated that the subject's home life
and familiar relationships are depicted in the house

drawings,
while tree drawings appear to reflect
projection from more unconscious levels of the

personality.
Wenck suggested that the person's drawings
are a manifestation of the drawer's perception of himself

or the self he wishes to be.
Wenck
(1977)
claimed that
over 475 emotional indicators have been identified and

defined on the drawings of a house,
Interestingly,
and a person.
many suggested that Buck developed
the H-T-P to assess children

Knoff & Prout,
a tree,
(Burns & Kaufman,
1985; Van Hutton,
1994).
1972;
However,
when
Buck conducted his original quantitative standardization

work on the H-T-P,
students.
he used adult subjects and college
The H-T-P has since been used with children
and adults. Also available is an H-T-P interpretative

guide
(Buck,
1992)
that identifies the differences in
drawing characteristics between children and adults.
The
guide states that the H-T-P is best suitable for subjects

over 8 years of age to a d u l t .
41
Early Research With the H-T-P
Some of the early research on the H-T-P was
conducted by Emanuel F. Hammer
Hammer
(1953a)
(1953a,
1953b,
1954a).
took the drawings of 20 subjects who were
going to be surgically sterilized and compared them to

the drawings of 20 subjects who were having another type
of operation.
The assumption was that the subjects who
were going to be sterilized would have feelings of

castration anxiety that would be reflected through
genital and castration symbolization in their H - T - P s .
Drawings were taken from the subjects before,
and after the operation.
on the day,
Only emotional indicators that
were not present in the drawings done before the

operation and present after the operation were analyzed.
A checklist of 54 emotional indicators was used to
investigate castration feelings and phallic
sensitization.
The results showed significant
statistical differences on 26 of the 54 emotional

indicators that had to do with castration anxiety.
Another study by Hammer
(1953b)
administered 400
H-T-Ps to Black and White children from Grade 1 to Grade

8.
The drawings were interpreted for frustration,
aggression,
and hostility.
The assumption was that the
Black children would have more frustration,
aggression,
42
and hostility indicators on their drawings because of the
prejudice they endure.
Each H-T-P was rated on a scale
of aggression from 0-2 by six clinicians who did not

know which race the drawer was.
aggression,
A rating of 0 meant no
a rating of 1 was considered mild aggression,
and a rating of 2 indicated severe aggression.
The
results revealed that the White children scored lower on

frustration,
aggression,
and hostility than the Black
ch il d r e n .
Hammer
(1954a)
conducted a study on 64 sex
offenders who were incarcerated in prison.
Thirty-one of
them were convicted for raping an adult female,
and 33 of
the prisoners were pedophiles who had sexually approached

a female child.
The assumption in this study was that
the chronological age of the tree in the H-T-P drawing

would reflect the drawer's psychosexual maturity.
H-T-Ps were drawn by the subjects and the mean
ages projected onto the trees by the rapists and
pedophiles were 24.4 and 10.6 years,
respectively.
The
mean age of the victims of the rapists was 30.0 and the
mean age of the pedophile's victims was 9.5.
The
chronological mean age of the two groups of sex offenders

was 33.6 with a range of 24 to 60 for the rapists and
34.3 with a range of 23 to 63 for the pedophiles.
43
Hammer
(1964)
stated that the H-T-P had earned a
place along with other projective measures like the

Rorschach and the TAT.
The H-T-P's assets are its ease
and quickness of administration,

clinical data.
and its yield of rich,
Hammer further claimed that he found that
deeper conflicts frequently came into view more easily on

the drawing page than anywhere else.
what Machover
Perhaps this is
(1953) meant when she stated that
stereotyped defenses are more difficult to hide when

drawing than when speaking.
Hammer
(1964)
explained that
the H-T-P drawings were almost completely unstructured,

totally creative,
and non-verbal.
me dium of expression,
Drawing is a primitive
and is believed to be especially
useful when needing to assess one of low intelligence,

concrete orientation,
possessing an underprivileged
socio-cultural background,
or one who is extremely
guarded and defensive.

Prout
(1983)
conducted a national survey of
graduate school trainers and school psychologists to find

out what personality assessment techniques were used.
The H-T-P was frequently used or always used by 63% of
the subjects,
and the K-F-D was frequently used or always
used 62% of the time.
When asked to rank assessment
tools in order of importance,
the H-T-P was ranked ninth
44
and the K-F-D was ranked 12th.
(1993)
In Neale and Rosal's
research review on projective drawings,
that the Human Figure Drawing
(H-F-D)
they found
seemed to be the
strongest projective technique as far as holding up to

the scrutiny of research s t u d i e s .
The H-T-P,
K-S-D were found to be weaker but usable,
K-F-D,
and
particularly
when combined with a concurrent m e a s u r e .
H-T-P Research on Abuse

The H-T-P has been shown to be effective in
picking up emotional indicators of sexual abuse
Bergner,
Lewis,
Van Hutton,
& Goldstein,
1994;) .
(Blain,
1981; Kaufman & Wohl,
Kaufman and Wohl
(1992)
study involving 54 children ages 6 and 7.
1992;
conducted a
Eighteen
children were known to the mental health services as

having no sexual abuse,
community,
and 18 were sexual abuse victims within the
last 6 m o n t h s .
drawings.
betrayal,
18 were randomly chosen from the
All of the children drew H-T-P and K-F-D
Four constructs were assessed in the p i c t u r e s :

traumatic sexualization,
powerles sne ss .
stigmatization,
The results of the study showed
statistical significance for all four c o n s tr uc ts.

authors stated that both types of drawings,
the K-F-D,
and
The
the H-T-P and
were effective in finding the 18 sexually
abused children from the other subjects.
45
Blain et al.
(1981)
conducted a study to determine
whether the H-T-P should be used to identify physically

abused children.
Drawings of 32 abused children,
abused but disturbed children,
32 n on
and 5 well-adjusted
children were interpreted for indicators of abuse.
The
results showed that the H-T-P discriminated strongly

between the abused and well-adjusted children;
the H-T-P
did not discriminate between abused children and n o n

abused but disturbed c h i l d r e n .
Van Hutton
(1994)
introduced a new scoring system
using the H-T-P and the D-A-P for screening children for
possible sexual a b u s e .
In her book she came up with four
scales to measure the following co nst ru cts : (a)

Preoccupation with sexually relevant concepts;
Aggression and hostility;
accessibility;
and
(b)
(c) Withdrawal and guarded
(d) Alertness for danger,
suspiciousness, and lack of t r u s t .
These constructs were
based on personality/emotional characteristics that may

be present in a child in varying degrees.
Each of the
scale items was based on the cumulative clinical

and empirical literature on projective te c h n i q u e s .
The
characteristics in the drawings were based on the work of

Buck
(1948), Machover
(1969),
Burns
(1987),
(1949),
Hammer
(1969),
and Burns and Kaufman
Jolles
(1972) .
46
Van Hutton
(1994)
designed the scoring system to be
used with children 7 to 11 years of age and prepared a

scoring booklet for recording the characteristics.
Hutton's
(1994)
Van
work provided an objective way of
eliciting information from the drawings without

subjective interpretation.
Palmer et al.
(2000)
conducted a study to
investigate the use of the House-Tree-Person drawings in

evaluating child sexual abuse.
The subjects were 4 7
sexually abused children and 82 non-abused children.
The
HTPs were scored with the HTP/Draw-A-Person scoring

booklet devised by Van Hutton
scales.
(1994) using her four
Emotional indicators defined in each scale were
scored as present or absent.
The results of the study
revealed that the Van Hutton scales had fair to poor

inter-scorer reliability and that they were unable to
discriminate between the two groups.
The overall score
on the H-T-P was not found to predict group membership

between the abused children and the control group.
H-T-P Research With College Students

Marzolf and Kirchner
(1972)
conducted an
investigation of the relationship between H-T-P

characteristics and personality traits as defined by the
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire
(16PF).
The
47
H-T-P and the 16PF were administered to 760 undergraduate
college students;
306 were men and 454 were women.
The
hypothesis of the study stated that the presence or

absence of drawing characteristics
(emotional indicators)
would be reflected in 16 PF scores and therefore indicate

certain traits possessed by the student.
The results of
the research found a number of significant correlations

between emotional indicators and personality traits,
according to Marzolf and Kirchner,
but
too low to be used for
predictive purposes.
Marzolf and Kirchner's
(1972) most interesting
finding was that a particular emotional indicator could

have a different meaning depending on the gender of the
student.
They believed that this did not take
credibility away from the H-T-P,

what Buck
true:
(1948)
but demonstrated that
said about emotional indicators was
that no H-T-P sign
(emotional indicator)
absolute or fixed meaning.
had an
further stated that this points to the importance of

inquiry as an essential part of the procedure when
administering an H-T-P.
Abell,
Heiberger,
and Johnson
(1994)
conducted an
investigation of two scoring systems: The GoodenoughHarris scoring system used with the Draw-A-Person
(D-A-P)
48
projective technique and Buck's scoring system used with
the H-T-P d r a w i n g s .
They wanted to see how close the two
scoring systems would be to the WAIS-R scores for college

students,
accu r a t e .
and also see which scoring system was more

This study was conducted in order to find out
if the drawings could be a quick and nonverbal estimate

of intelligence.
The subjects were 101 undergraduates, and the
examiners were doctoral students in clinical p s y c h o l o g y .
Scores from the drawings were converted to standard
scores and were compared to the Verbal IQ,
IQ, and Full Scale IQ for each subj ect .
(1994)
Performance
Abell et a l .
compared the two scoring systems using only the
person drawing from the H - T - P .
Both scoring systems
yielded significant correlations with the Performance IQ

and the Full Scale IQ but not the Verbal IQ.
Buck's
scores were higher than the Goodenough scores in relation

to the WAIS-R scores,
but both scoring systems
underestimated the IQ scores.
When the house and tree
drawings were added they did not enhance the validity of

the score.
It is also important to state that the
Goodenough scoring system was developed on children,

whereas Buck's scoring system was developed on a d u l t s .
The Goodenough scoring system might have had better
49
results if it had been used on the population for which
it was designed.
Groth-Marnat and Roberts
(1998)
tested 40
undergraduate students to assess the validity of H-F-Ds

and H-T-Ps as measures of self-esteem.
were requested to draw an H-F-D,
The students
an H-T-P,
and to
complete a Coopersmith Self Esteem Inventory and

Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.
Indicators of
psychological health were taken from an earlier review

of the adult clinical literature
(Morena,
1981).
Quantitative total ratings of H-F-D and H-T-P

indicators of psychological health were developed
because the authors found that,
literature,
in reviewing the
composite ratings of drawings have resulted
in greater validity than single signs.
This composite
rating was then compared to the scores of the Coopersmith

and Tennessee tests.
The results showed that neither the
H-F-D nor the H-T-P quantitative score was a significant

indicator of self-esteem.
Miscellaneous H-T-P Research

Davis and Hoopes
(1975)
administered the H-T-P to
80 deaf school children and 80 hearing school children,

ages 7 to 10, to see if the drawings would differentiate
the two groups.
Drawings were scored by the presence or
50
absence of items.
In assessing the person drawing,
the
only item that was found significantly more often in one

group than the other was the shading of the mouth.
was found in the hearing group.
drawing,
In looking at the tree
the branch structure was significantly different
between the two groups.

branches,
This
The hearing children drew
whereas the deaf children drew a round or oval
perimeter implying branches.
There were no significant
differences between the two groups with the house

drawing.
Davis and Hoopes
(1975)
said that in this study
there was clear evidence that the ear was not drawn
differently by deaf or hearing children,
ages tested,
at least at the
which showed that some of the clinical
assumptions about body image in young children must be

reconsidered.
Thirty-four transsexual patients were
administered the House-Tree-Person as part of a battery
of psychological testing
(Doorbar,
1967).
The
transsexuals were biological males who had gone through

hormone treatment and sex-change operations to become
females.
This type of testing on transsexual patients
was hoped to shed light on the emotional and social

adjustment that had taken place after the operations.
51
Other tests included in the battery are the Thematic
Apperception Test,
the Rorschach,
Personality Inventory,
Minnesota Multiphasic
and Bender Gestalt.
The transsexuals invariably drew a female when

asked to draw a person.
The female drawings often
resembled high-fashion clothing models gazing in mirrors

or posing for photographers.
to jewelry,
hairstyle,
A lot of attention was paid
and dress.
The drawings of houses by the transsexuals

exhibited some signs of emotional insecurity,
but mainly
depicted the type of living arrangement they would like

to have a warm,
happy,
family life with children.
drawings of the tree fell into two categories.

were many soft,
flowing,
weeping willow trees;
The
There
and there
were also many trees that were cut off by the edge of the
paper or cut off in the actual drawing.
When requested
to draw a person of the opposite sex of what was

originally drawn,
there were usually simple,
stereotyped
drawings of males where little interest was shown in the

depiction.
There were a few exceptions to this where the
male figure was drawn with a lot of care and was

identified as a love object.
Muscular men or men in
uniform were drawn and were referred to as the type of

man they would like to be with or marry.
None of the
52
patients drew a naked person.
The author stated that
"before" and "after" testing of the transsexuals should

be conducted to find the extent of the personality
changes that have taken place along with the physical
changes
(Doorbar,
1967).
Doorbar
(1967)
claimed that more
research in this area could help with the adjustment

process which the transsexuals go through.
Devore and Fryrear
tree drawing of the H-T-P.
(1976)
conducted a study on the
They were interested in
examining the knothole drawn on a tree trunk in relation

to 22 variables.
of residence
The 22 variables were age,
(urban or rural),
height,
sex,
weight,
county
race,
IQ
(intelligence quotient measured by the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale or the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Ch ild ren ), birth-order position,
home,
number of parents in
number of same-sex siblings,
siblings,
number of opposite-sex
total number of siblings minus subject,
grade placement,
season the drawing was made,
MMPI scales of Hypochondriasis,

Psychopathic Deviancy,
Schizophrenia,
Paranoia,
Depression,
reading
and the
Hysteria,
Psychasthenia,
and Mania.
Subjects were juvenile delinquents who were court

referrals or were entering a state institution for
delinquents.
A knothole had been drawn by 228 of the
53
subjects who were the experimental group.
The control
group consisted of 7 6 subjects who did not draw a

knothole.
The 22 variables were examined by appropriate
statistical methods in an attempt to find differences

between the two groups.
It was found that the two groups differed
significantly on IQ and the Mania scale only.
The
results of the study indicated that the subject who drew

a knothole on the tree tended to be more intelligent and
less prone to acting out physically.
The authors stated
that perhaps H-T-P emotional indicators may be understood

more fully in light of a particular combination of
personality characteristics that bring about their
expression.
The authors said that this assumption should
be seriously investigated to understand more about

drawings and personality characteristics.
The K-H-T-P
Robert C. Burns wrote a book called the KineticHouse-Tree-Person Drawings
(K-H-T-P)
in 1987.
He gave
the drawer an 8^s" by 11" paper and asked them to draw a

house,
figure,
tree,
and a whole person,
not a cartoon or stick
and include some kind of action.
stated that while analyzing the house,
Burns
tree,
(1987)
and person
as separate drawings can provide clinical information,
54
the K-H-T-P would reveal even more dynamics about the
drawer because of the interaction of the house,
person and the added kinetic component.
tree,
and
There would be
one interpretation for the K-H-T-P drawing instead of

three separate interpretations that resulted with the
H-T-P drawings.
This book compared K-H-T-P drawings to the HouseTree-Person Drawings
(H-T-P); showed actions,
symbols in the K-H-T-P;
styles,
and
defined a developmental model for
the drawings of the K-H-T-P;
and provided case studies in
individual and family therapy using the K - H - T - P . In his

book,
Burns
(1987)
stated that he collected K-H-T-P
drawings over the last 20 years,
and these drawings tell
a story about the drawer that goes beyond what the H-T-P
can provide in clinical d a t a .
Burns
(1987)
believed that
while "something may be gained from viewing the house,

the tree,
and the person in isolation,
the dynamics
revealed in seeing the H-T-P as a whole increases the

value of the tool"
(p. 5).
The case studies and examples provided in Burns's

book were drawn by people ranging in age from 9 to 64,
thus obtaining data on children,
with the K-H-T-P.
adolescents,
and adults
The case studies revealed information
about the drawer based on the house,
tree,
and person,
55
the action that was drawn,
distances,
the attachments,
and order of the figures drawn
sizes,
(Burns,
1987).
Attachments are seen by Burns as suggesting "some

inability of the drawers to separate and untangle various
dimensions of their l i v e s .
People who cannot untangle
their lives and who fail to have clear unobstructed paths

seem to be chronically unfulfilled and dissatisfied"
(Burns,
1987, p.
89). Burns also showed an H-T-P by the
same drawer that does not reflect the clinical data that
was received from the K-H-T-P.
(1987),
According to Burns
adding instructions to include action to the
drawing gave the K-H-T-P's analysis richness and

scorability not otherwise found in the H-T-P
(p. 129).
Burns claimed that many of the methods of analysis that

were developed for the Kinetic Family Drawing
could be applied to the K-H-T-P.
(K-F-D)
Burns further observed
that the drawer of the H-T-P was not given a choice as to

what object they would draw f i r s t .
K-H-T-P,
However,
with the
the drawers are allowed to choose to draw the
objects in the order they please,

interpretation of the d r a w i n g .
thus adding to the
Burns also stated that by
drawing the three figures separately,

for an action or interaction,
one does not allow
which he believed to be
critical and clinically rich.
56
I would like to suggest that Burns is not entirely
correct in his summation of the H - T - P .
have an action drawn on an H-T-P,
It is possible to
it just is not asked
for in the instructions for the drawings.
Hammer
(1964)
discussed an action drawn under the headings of "traits

and strengths" in his research manual,
stating that
"implied movement is a reflection of the person's

flexibility,
and walking along easily or relaxed and
playing is a sign of good adjustment"

(1971)
(p. 10).
Jolles
listed the following actions in his catalog
for interpreting the H - T - P : walking easily,

blindly,
controlled running,
and movement
general movement of the house,

Buck
tree,
running
(meaning
or p e r s o n ) .
(1948) believed that the absence or presence
of motion and type of movement might have definite

significance.
One of the questions on the post-drawing
interrogation
(P D I ) of the H-T-P was to ask what the
person was doing.

house,
tree,
Buck discussed the movement of the
and person under the heading of
"P e rsp ec tiv e."
He believed that movement of the house
was catastrophic in nature
(tipping or collapsing),
regarded as at least pathoformic,

pathological.
and usually
He also suggested that movement of the
tree was usually a violent motion drawn by psychopathic
57
individuals since it would take a powerful natural
phenomenon or human destructive action to distort the
tree's position,
whereas movement of the person need not
be pathoformic or pathological,
and can show a person's
feeling of satisfactory adjustment.

Buck
(1948) believed that the type of movement
drawn spoke for itself.
Although Burns gave much more
emphasis to actions in drawings and concentrated on

specific meanings for each action in his work with the
K-F-D and K-H-T-P
(Burns,
1987;
Burns & Kaufman,
1972 ),
it is important to note that action or movement was known

as revealing projective data in a drawing as long ago as
1948.
In another projective test,
test,
Exner
(1993)
stated that any action or movement,
whether it is non-human or human,

projection.
the Rorschach inkblot
Piotrowski
(1957)
involves some type of
and Exner
(1974)
found that
the type of human movement stated in response to an

inkblot related to types of behavior and interpersonal
effectiveness.
Subjects who gave cooperative human-
movement responses were usually more oriented toward more

socially effective behaviors.
predominately passive,
Subjects who gave
human-movement responses were
prone to be dependent on others.
Subjects who gave a
58
high frequency of aggressive human-movement responses
exhibited more verbal and nonverbal aggressive behaviors
and were also prone to have interpersonal relationships
marked by aggressiveness
Burns
(1987)
(Exner,
1983).
defined a developmental model for
interpreting the K-H-T-P drawing.
He stated that Abraham
Maslow developed levels of personal growth

that could
(Maslow,
be applied to projective drawings.
1954)
These
levels of growth can also be called a need hierarchy and

are defined as:
Level 1: Belonging to life desire for life,
survival, safety, rootedness.
Level 2: Belonging to body acceptance of body;
seeking control of body addictions and
pot e n t i a l s .
Level 3: Belonging to society search for status,
success, respect, and power.
Level 4: Belonging to self and not-self self now
defined to include not-self as a pregnant
woman accepts her child; compassion,
nurturing, giving love; meta motivation.
Level 5: Belonging to all living things giving
and accepting love; self actualization;
sense of good fortune and luck;
creativity; celebration of life. (p. 54)
Burns then broke the first three levels into what
he called approach and avoidance
passive)
types.
(or aggressive or
Depending on how the figure was drawn,
it would be classified into one of these types.

example using the house,
For an
Burns stated that a house that
was drawn as a fortress or a sanctuary would classify the
59
drawer as an approacher type.
A house that was weak and
decaying would mean the drawer was of an avoider type

(Burns,
1987).
Only one reference to the K-H-T-P was found in the

literature,
and it was referred to as the Synthetic
House-Tree-Person drawing
1997).
(Fukunishi,
Mikami,
& Kikuchi,
This study referenced the Kinetic-House-Tree-
Person book written by Burns.
The instructions for the
drawing were to "Draw a house,
a tree,
this paper with some kind of action.

person,
not a cartoon or stick person.
and a person on
Try to draw a whole
Please do not
write explanations in words." Although referred to by a

different name,
from the description it is obvious that
the authors were speaking of the K-T-H-P.

In their study they examined the K-H-T-P drawings
of 589 Japanese college students and compared the results
to the students'
20 .
scores on the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-
The authors wanted to know if the K-H-T-P could
detect a lex it hym ia. Alexithymia refers to a person who

has difficulty in identifying and describing emotions,
reveals a paucity of fantasy life,
externally oriented t h i n k i n g .
and possesses
The results yielded
students who scored over 61 points on the Toronto

Alexithymia Scale-20 showed two characteristics on the
60
K-H-T-P:
Poor relationships between figures and
additional written explanations.

The Kinetic-House-Tree-Person interpretative
manual written by Burns
(1987)
has samples of an H-T-P
and a K-H-T-P drawn by the same person so they can be

compared.
Burns gave an interpretation of each drawing.
Although Dr. Ames referred to the author's

unsubstantiated interpretations in the foreword of the
book,
she also stated that the K-H-T-P would be a welcome
addition to test batteries.
Emotional Indicators
The drawings of the H-T-P were originally used to
assess intelligence
(Buck,
1948).
Buck found that useful
information about the subject's intellectual level could

be gained from inspecting the H-T-P drawings.
The
presence or absence of items in the drawings served to

differentiate subjects on the basis of intelligence.
Shortly thereafter it was found that information about
the subject's personality could be derived from the
drawings.
Buck attempted to identify and evaluate the
items that differentiate between drawings produced by

persons who did not exhibit major personality
maladjustment and those who did.
Buck referred to these
items as non-intellective factors in the drawings.
61
Buck
(1948)
discovered that the items which best
served to differentiate between maladjusted and adjusted

subjects were details,
proportion,
perspective,
time,
comments
(spontaneous and induced), associations,
quality,
self-criticism,
attitude,
drive,
line
and c o n c e p t .
Buck took each of these general headings and broke them

down into many sub-headings for a more specific analysis
of items.
In his analysis Buck found that an item may
have different meanings for different subjects.
The non-
intellective items can be evaluated adequately only when

their relationship to the total drawing configuration has
been considered
(Buck,
1948).
The population used for Buck's qualitative

standardization study was 150 adult mental patients
grouped by diagnosis.
While Buck admits that the
population was not a well-balanced sample,
it did serve
to indicate that the H-T-P drawings differed in many

respects when compared to the drawings of adjusted
adults.
Buck continued to analyze over 500 H-T-P
drawings of subjects with personality maladjustment to

confirm or reject the findings from the preliminary
study.
Buck admitted that his qualitative study of the
H-T-P was more complex and difficult in working with

factors that make up the total personality than his
62
quantitative study of intelligence
(Buck,
1948).
He
concluded that not all non-intellective factors had been

identified and that his work was not necessarily complete
or necessarily correct.
At about the same time that Buck was conducting
his studies on the H-T-P,
Karen Machover was studying
personality projection in the drawing of the human

figure.
Machover studied thousands of human figure
drawings in a clinical context,
and while some of the
assumptions lack experimental verification,

to be clinically valid
(Machover,
they proved
1949).
Machover used personality analysis and

psychoanalytical theory to interpret drawings.
She
referred to drawings as containing graphic features or

drawing traits.
Over a 15-year span, Machover clinically
observed human figure drawings to arrive at specific

meanings for drawing t r a i t s .
Patients who drew a
particular graphic feature were carefully studied with

special reference to the context in which the trait
appeared.
Machover,
like Buck,
found different meanings
for the same drawing trait and came to the conclusion

that the interpretation of drawings,
aid,
as a therapeutic
is most beneficial when all available case history
data are included for the clinician
(Machover,
1949).
63
Machover stated that many of her formulations would need
to be changed as the drawing traits were further
explored,
validated,
and refined.
ahead in interpreting drawings,
She saw much more work
but felt that she had
offered a solid framework for continued progress

(Machover,
1949).
Koppitz
drawings.
(1968)
worked with children's human figure
She distinguished between drawing
characteristics which reflect a child's age or level of

maturation and those which suggest intrapersonal and
interpersonal attitudes,
concerns.
anxiety,
and social-emotional
Drawing characteristics that are associated
with maturation were called developmental items,
and
drawing characteristics that involve social-emotional

concerns were called emotional indicators.
Koppitz
defined emotional indicators according to three criteria:

(a) they must have a clinical use and differentiate
between drawings of healthy and emotionally disturbed
subjects,
(b) they should occur at a low frequency in the
drawings of healthy subjects

subje cts ), and
(less than 6% of healthy
(c) their frequency of occurrence should
be independent of age and maturation.

Koppitz
(1968) believed that the diagnostic
significance of emotional indicators is increased by
64
considering the presence in the total context of the
drawing rather than looking at them individually.
Koppitz also cautioned clinicians not to make a diagnosis
based on a single emotional indicator.
drawing,
The total
other test results,
and
case history should all be analyzed before making a

diagn osi s.
At the same time that Koppitz was working with the
human figure drawing,
Burns was studying the K-F-D.
Burns
had been accumulating and scrutinizing 10,000 K-F-Ds over

a period of 12 years
(Burns & Kaufman,
Burns defined actions,
styles,
1972).
While
and symbols and was
interested in the relationships and interactions of the

figures,
he also referred to the drawings as containing
drawing variables or features

Kaufman,
K-F-D,
1972).
(Burns,
1982; Burns &
In his interpretative manual for the
an appendix contains drawing features and their
clinical interpretation.
At the end of the appendix
Burns stated that the appendix is only a brief

introduction and for a more complete evaluation of human
figures the reader is referred to the works of Machover
(1949,
1953).
When Burns developed the K-H-T-P,
his
interpretative manual contained an appendix which listed
65
drawing variables used in projective drawing
interpretation.
The variables were listed,
defined,
and
a reference was provided which showed who developed

the clinical definition.
The appendix showed numerous
references to the work of Buck

Jolles
(1972).
(1948), Machover
(1949),
(1964),
Hammer
(1969),
and Burns and Kaufman
Burns
(1987)
stated that many of the methods of
analysis developed in the usage of the K-F-D might be

applied to the K-H-T-P.
Brooke
(1996)
stated that while
the source of some of the interpretations of K-H-T-P

drawing characteristics by Burns is unclear,
overall he
draws on the work of previous researchers for

interpretation.
It should thus be noted that Burns
combined his findings from his work on the K-F-D with the
work of the other authors mentioned in the appendix to
arrive with a set of variables to interpret the K-H-T-P.
Chapter Summary
The H-T-P has been used by clinicians for over 50
years to elicit information about how an individual
experiences the self in relation to others and to their
home environment
(Buck,
1992).
The K-H-T-P is virtually
unknown in the literature for projective tec h n i q u e s .

While Burns
(1987)
claims that the K-H-T-P can add to the
clinical results of the H-T-P,
there is no research
substantiate t h i s .
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents a description of the

research,
variables,
the population,
instrumentation,
reliability,
the data,
the selection of the sample,
a pilot study,
data entry,
H-T-P reliability,
procedures,
K-H-T-P
collection of
null hypothesis and analysis,
and
chapter summary.
Description of the Research

This research was a passive-observational study
because the variables were observed but not manipulated.
The drawings were scanned for the presence of variables
(called emotional in dicators), and the results of the
H-T-P and the K-H-T-P drawings were compared.
Population
The population for this study was university
students,
18 years of age and older.
The reason for
using this population was to obtain an adequate

baseline on what the H-T-P drawings and K-H-T-P
drawings look like when drawn by a non-clinical
67
68
group.
"Non-clinical" means that the subjects were not
currently seeing a psychologist or counselor.
The
participants were screened for any knowledge of the

H-T-P and the K-H-T-P,
and did not qualify as a
participant if they were familiar with either test.
Selection of the Sample

Several colleges and universities in Michigan
and Illinois were contacted and asked to participate in
the research.
Two universities,
one from each state,
were willing to allow the research to be conducted with

their students.
One university was a small,
private college with 600 students.

small,
urban,
rural,
The other was a
private college with 1,700 students.
Instructors were informed of the research project,
and
those who agreed allowed the study to be discussed

during class time to familiarize the students with what
would be expected of them if they chose to participate.
Undergraduates,
graduates,
and medical students were
included in the study.
Variables
The variables in this study were the emotional
indicators found on the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P drawings.
Emotional indicators for the H-T-P are defined in the
69
House-Tree-Person D r a w i n g s : An Illustrated Diagnostic
Handbook
(Wenck,
1977)
and A Catalog for the
Qualitative Interpretation of the House-Tree-Person

(H-T-P)
(Jolles,
1971).
Emotional Indicators on the
K-H-T-P are defined in the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person

Drawings
(K-H-T-P) : An Interpretive Manual
1987); Actions,
Drawings
(K-F-D)
(Burns,
Styles and Symbols in Kinetic Family

(Burns & Kaufman,
1972);
and Kinetic
Dra wing System for Family and S c h o o l : A Handbook
(Knoff
& P rou t, 1985).

Some of the emotional indicators defined for the
H-T-P are not used because they are indicators that do
not actually come from the drawings but from what the
subject says about the drawings during the P D I .
there was no PDI in this study,
Since
these indicators were
not used.
Examples of these indicators are: the age of
the tree;
the elapsed time since the death of the tree;
and whether the sun was seen in the north or s o u t h .

Several of the emotional indicators defined for the
H-T-P were not used because the indicators were not
drawing characteristics but impressions and
observations made by the e x a m i n e r . Examples of these
indicators are,
marked;
according to the m a n u a l :
psychomotor decrease,
persistent;
fatigue,
and
70
psychomotor increase, marked.
Instrumentation
Two instruments were used in this s t u d y : The
House-Tree-Person drawings devised by John Buck
(194 8)
and the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person drawing developed by

Robert Burns
(1987).
A complete description of each
instrument is provided in chapter 2.
H-T-P Reliability
Although the H-T-P was established in 1948,
there have been few empirical studies published
concerning the reliability of this technique
1986).
(Cummings,
Buck did not present reliability and validity
studies to support the use of the H-T-P,
and most
research on the H-T-P has not concentrated on

establishing reliability and validity
(1970)
(Brooke,
1996).
found acceptable
test-retest stability at 4 to 6 weeks for the H-T-P.

The sample population was undergraduates,
87 females.
With very few exceptions,
4 9 males and
there were no
marked changes between the first and second set of

drawings.
In another study with college students,
(1972)
reliability was better than
stated that inter-rater

.90 when two raters
71
analyzed the drawings of 306 men and 454 women.
Ouellete
(cited in Brooke,
1996)
administered
the H-T-P to 33 young deaf adults and had psychologists

rate the drawings on scales measuring aggression,
anxiety,
insecurity,
egocentricity,
impulsiveness,
dependency,
immaturity,
and feelings of inadequacy.
Inter-rater reliability was established for aggression,

impulsiveness,
immaturity,
The psychologists'
and feelings of inadequacy.
ratings of the drawings were
compared with trained counselors'

observations,
aggression,
clinical
validity was established for five scales:
impulsiveness,
immaturity,
egocentricity,
and dependency.
Kuhlman and Bieliauskas
(1976)
found an inter
rater reliability of .88 to .92 when the H-T-Ps of 30

Black and 30 White adolescents were analyzed.
and Phelps
(1985)
Cohen
conducted a two-part study where 89
child victims of incest and 77 children with emotional

problems,
ages 4 to 18, drew H-T-Ps.
The drawings were
analyzed with an acceptable inter-rater reliability of

.82.
The second stage of the study used drawings from
40 subjects in each group.
Ten new raters were used to
analyze the drawings and the inter-rater reliability

was
.42, which was considerably lower than the first
72
stage of the research study.
Vass
(1998)
women and 10 men.
looked at H-T-P drawings from 41

The subjects were adults ranging in
age from 17 to 46 years,

years.
and the mean age was 21.5
Three trained and independent raters had an
inter-rater reliability of
.57 for the person drawing,
and .53 for both the tree and house drawing.
There was
only one reference found for the H-T-P concerning its

properties as a measure of intelligence.
The
coefficient of correlation standardized on 120 adults

subjects for the H-T-P and the full Wechier-Bellevue
I.Q. test for 100 cases was
.746
(Buros,
1970).
K-H-T-P Reliability
There was no reliability information provided by
Burns for the K-H-T-P.
Additionally,
information found in the literature
there is no such
(Brooke,
1996).
Pilot Study
A pilot study was conducted to compare the
emotional indicators found on the H-T-P to the K-H-T-P.
It was hoped that conducting a pilot study would reveal
any problems with the way the research was carried out,
so that the problems could be addressed before the
investigation began.
Forty adults were the subjects.
73
Each subject was asked to draw the H-T-P and the
K-H-T-P.
Early in the study one of the subjects who
was drawing the house on the H-T-P drew many windows

with panes and curtains.
When she drew the windows on
her house on the K-H-T-P,
she drew only a few squares
for windows.
When all of her drawings were completed,
she was asked why she drew her windows so differently

on the two drawings.
She replied that she was tired of
drawing by the time she got to the last drawing.

Because of learning of this fatigue factor,
20 of the subjects were asked to draw the H-T-P first
and then the K-H-T-P,
and the other 20 subjects were
asked to draw the K-H-T-P first and then the H-T-P.

Changing the order of the drawings was an attempt to
keep the embellishments approximately the same for the
two types of projective drawings.
After scanning all of the drawings there was a
total of 190 emotional indicators present.
Each
emotional indicator was totaled for the presence or

absence in each drawing.
A contingency table was drawn
up for each emotional indicator,

analyzed by the McNemar test
sa mp l e s ) .
and these tables were
(Chi Square for correlated
Only 15 of the 190 emotional indicators met
the critical value of Chi Square with one degree of
74
freedom.
Of these 15,
13 were found on the H-T-P
significantly more frequently than on the K-H-T-P.
The
two emotional indicators that were present on the

K-H-T-P significantly more frequently were the action
of a person swinging on a swing,
from a tree.
and a swing hanging
Across 40 sets of drawings these were the
only emotional indicators that were found more often on

the K-H-T-P than the H-T-P.
The drawings of the
figures on the K-H-T-P were usually smaller in order to

get all of the figures on one page.
were smaller,
Since the figures
there was less embellishment,
which leads
to less emotional indicators.

Conducting a small pilot study on 4 0 adults and
finding 190 emotional indicators showed that a study
with a larger sample would evoke a much larger number
of emotional indicators.
This raised a concern over
how the large number of indicators would be stored on

the computer.
The indicators needed to be loaded in a
format that could be handled by the statistical

software,
SPSS.
SPSS has restrictions on the size of
the tables it can work with.

Another concern that was revealed from
conducting the pilot study was the enormous amount of
data entry that would be required to load all of the
lb
emotional indicators taken from the drawings.
A large
amount of time would be required for this task.
Procedures
All participants signed and dated consent forms
(Appendix A ) , and wrote their age and gender on the
form.
Students were allowed to keep a copy of the
consent form if they chose.
All questions about the
process were answered before the drawing began.
The
drawings were produced in two different ways from

participating students.
Either the drawings were drawn
during class time as a group session,
or students
scheduled an individual 30-minute meeting to produce

the four drawings.
This came about because some
instructors would relinquish some of their class time

to allow for the drawings to be completed in class,
while other instructors allowed only the research to be
announced and meeting times be arranged for the
drawings to be done outside of class time.
Both instruments were administered to each
subject.
The H-T-P was given first to half of the
participants,
and the K-H-T-P was given first to the
other half of the subjects.
This was conducted in case
there was a fatigue factor that would cause less

embellishment of the drawings administered last.
Each
76
subject produced four drawings in a row,
the only
difference being which drawing they were told to draw

first,
either the H-T-P or the K-H-T-P.
the H-T-P,
To administer
the subject was given several No.
2 pencils
with erasers and an 8h by 11 sheet of plain white paper

presented horizontally.
The subject was told:
you to draw a picture of a house.

any kind of house you wish,
You may take as
Just do your best."
The tree drawing page

plain white paper)
You may draw
and do the best you can.
You may erase as much as you like.

much time as you need.
"I want
(another 8^ by 11 sheet of
was presented to the subject
vertically after they had completed the house drawing.

The subject was told:
a tree.
"I want you to draw a picture of
You may draw any kind of tree you wish,
the best you can.
and do
You may erase as much as you like.
You may take as much time as you need.
Just do your
b e s t ."
When this drawing was completed the subject was
given another 8h by 11 sheet of plain white paper
presented vertically.
The subject was told,
you to draw a picture of a person.

kind of person you wish,
"I want
You may draw any
and do the best you can.
may erase as much as you like.
You
You may take as much
77
time as you need.
Just do your best."
To administer the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person each

subject was given several No. 2 pencils and an 8^ by 11
sheet of plain white paper.
"Draw a house,
The instructions were to
a tree and a whole person on this piece
of paper with some kind of action.

person,
Try to draw a whole
not a cartoon or stick figure."

The time that it took the students to draw the
four drawings ranged from 10 minutes to 1 hour and 20

minutes,
but the majority of the participants finished
in 30 minutes.
When the drawings were completed,
the
students were asked to name the action that was drawn

on their K-H-T-P.
This was to ensure that there was no
misinterpretation of identifying the type of action.

Any unrecognizable parts of the drawings were also
questioned so that the students could explain what was
drawn.
Again,
this was to eliminate misinterpretation.
Collection of the Data

When the drawings were collected,
they were
analyzed for the emotional indicators present.
Each
indicator found on the drawings was written down and

grouped by the particular drawing it was found in,
either the H-T-P or K-H-T-P.
Each set of drawings and
each list of indicators were assigned the same
78
identification number at this time to tie them
together.
Table 1 shows an example of this checklist.
Table 1
Checklist for Emotional Indicators
Student No.
Emotional
Indicator
H-T-P
K-H-T-P
Chin omitted
Feet unusually small
Chimney,
prominent
Chimney,
at an angle
All of the emotional indicators were tallied

across the 204 checklists.
It was observed that there
were 499 different emotional indicators that

were drawn throughout the 204 protocols.
Data Entry
Data tables were created to store the findings
from the drawings.
Ten tables were defined so that
the table size would be within the maximum size

required by the statistical program that was used.
Each data table had 204 rows
participant),
(one for each
and two columns for each emotional
79
indicator:
One column was for the indicator being
present or absent on the H-T-P;
and the second column
was for the indicator being present or absent on the

K-H-T-P.
There needed to be enough space to store the
499 indicators that were evoked from the drawings.
The
first data table contained the emotional indicators

that were numbered from "1" to "53."
The second data
table contained indicators "54" to "106," the third had

"107" to "153," the fourth had "154" to "209," the
fifth had "210 to 257," the sixth had "258" to "299,"
the seventh had "300" to "346," the eighth had "347" to
"395," the ninth had "396" to "448," and the 10th had
"449" to "499."
The division of the 499 indicators
into the tables was based on a logical break so that

all indicators of the same type were loaded in the same
table.
There were only two possible values that were
loaded into the data tables because the emotional

indicators were dichotomous variables,
designated as
"0" for absent from the drawing or "1" for present on

the drawing.
Using the limited data shown in Table 1,
that part of the entry would be coded as "11111001."
Null Hypothesis and Analysis

The null hypothesis stated that for each
emotional indicator present there was no significant
80
difference in the frequency of occurrence within the
H-T-P drawings and the K-H-T-P d r a w i n g .
The hypothesis was tested by the correlated Chi
Square statistic
(the McNemar test)
emotional indicator.
for each observed
Each test was made with alpha =
.05.
Chapter Summary
This chapter dealt with the description of the
research,
variables,
population,
instrumentation,
reliability,
data,
selection of the sample,
pilot study,
data entry,
H-T-P reliability,
procedures,
K-H-T-P
collection of the
and null hypothesis and a n a l y s i s .
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
This chapter presents information obtained from

the sample studied.
It is divided into four parts
beginning with the demographic data of the sample,

emotional indicators found in the study,
hypothesis,
testing the
and the presentation of the findings.
Demographic Data of the Sample

A total of 204 college students participated in
the research.
The participants came from a Michigan
university and an Illinois university.
The sample
consisted of 117 females and 87 males.
Half of the
students drew the H-T-P first,

the K-H-T-P first.
while the other half drew
A breakdown of the numbers of males
and females according to the first drawing is provided in

Table 2.
The ages of the research participants ranged
from 18 to 60 years with a mean age of 27.6 years.
Table
3 shows the age data of the college students divided into

age ranges.
81
82
Table 2
Sample Distribution b y Gender b y First Drawing
H-T-P
Drawn First
Males
Females
Total
K-H-T-P
Drawn First
Total
45
57
42
60
87
117
102
102
204
Table 3
Sample Distribution b y Age Range
Age Range
18
25
30
36
24
29
35
60
Sample
Size
95
48
20
41
Percentages
46.6
23.5
09.8
20.1
Cumulative
Percentages
4 6.6
70.1
79.9
100. 0
83
Emotional Indicators Found in the Sample
After the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P were administered
to the 204 students,
the drawings were then analyzed for
the emotional indicators present in each test.
There
were a total of 499 different emotional indicators found,

and a list of these indicators is provided in Appendix B.
Table 4 provides data on the number of the emotional
indicators found on the protocols
(the set of four
drawings administered to each participant is referred to

as a p r o t o c o l ) .
Table 4
Data on Emotional Indicators b y Protocol
H-T-P
Drawn First
K-H-T-P
Drawn First
Smallest No.
Of Emotional
Indicators
25
25
Largest No.
of Emotional
Indicators
65
61
Mean of
Emotional
Indicators
37 .1
40.6
84
There was a concern over the research participants
drawing fewer embellishments on the last drawing because
of fatigue or wanting to hurry to finish.
Fewer
embellishments would mean fewer emotional indicators on

the last drawing.
I hoped that having half of the
students draw the H-T-P first and the other half of the
students draw the K-H-T-P first would help to keep the
embellishments,
and therefore the emotional indicators,
equally drawn for both tests.
Table 5 provides data on
the numbers of emotional indicators found and the means

for the individual H-T-P drawings and the individual
K-H-T-P drawings.
Testing the Hypothesis

One null hypothesis was tested in this research
study:
There is no significant difference in the
frequency of occurrence of emotional indicators that are

found on the H-T-P drawings and the K-H-T-P drawing.
The hypothesis was tested by the correlated Chi
Square statistic called the McNemar test for each
observed emotional indicator.
alpha = .05.
Each test was made with
The statistics show that there were 108
emotional indicators that were found significantly more

often on one test than another,
so the hypothesis was
rejected.
85
Table 5
Data on Emotional Indicators b y Test
H-T-P
Drawings
K-H-T-P
Drawing
Smallest No.
of E.I.s when
H-T-P drawn
first
17
10
Smallest No.
of E.I.s when
K-H-T-P drawn
first
16
13
Largest No.
of E.I.s when
H-T-P drawn
first
48
44
Largest No.
of E.I.s when
K-H-T-P drawn
first
42
49
Mean of E.I.s
when H-T-P
drawn first
27. 63
21. 15
Mean of E.I.s
when K-H-T-P
drawn first
26. 93
23. 30
Mean of E.I.s
on total sample
27.28
22.24
Note. E.I. = Emotional Indicator
86
Presentation of the Findings
Appendix B displays the results of the McNemar
test on the 4 99 emotional indicators.
each emotional indicator,
The appendix lists
states the number of protocols
where the indicator was found on both drawings,
states
the number of drawings where the indicator was present

only on the H-T-P drawings,
states the number of drawings
where the indicator was present only on the K-H-T-P

drawings,
gives the number of protocols where the
indicator was absent on both drawings,

significance.
and displays the
If the significance of the emotional
indicator was equal to or less than .05, there is an

asterisk placed next to the number for easily spotting
the emotional indicators that are found significantly
more often on one test than another.
The 499 emotional indicators are listed under the
headings of general drawing characteristic,
person,
actions,
styles,
and symbols.
house,
tree,
These headings are
used to categorize emotional indicators in the projective

drawing literature.
characteristic,
The headings of general drawing
house,
tree,
and person came from the
work of John Buck with the H-T-P.

actions,
styles,
The headings of
and symbols were developed from the work
of Dr. Robert Burns with the K-F-D.
The emotional
87
indicators are alphabetized within each category.
There were 7 4 emotional indicators that were found
significantly more often on the H-T-P than the K-H-T-P,
and 34 emotional indicators that were found significantly
more often on the K-H-T-P than on the H-T-P.
contains the 74 emotional indicators,
their definitions,
the research author of each definition,

research for that definition,
Table 6
the year of the
the number of H-T-P
drawings where the indicator was present only on that

test,
the number of K-H-T-P drawings where the indicator
was present only on that test,
the number of protocols
where the indicator was present on both tests,
and the
signif ic anc e.
The emotional indicators in Table 6 are listed
under the headings of general drawing characteristic,
house,
tree,
person,
actions,
styles,
and symbols.
These
headings are used to categorize emotional indicators in

the projective drawing literature.
The indicators are
alphabetized within each category.
For the presentation
of this chapter,
Table 6 is provided with some of the
same information from Appendix B.
Appendix B lists all
of the 499 indicators whereas Table 6 refers only to the

74 indicators which were found significantly more often
on the H-T-P drawings than on the K-H-T-P d r a w i n g s .
Table 6
Emotional Indicators Found Significantly More Often on the H-T-P
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
General Drawing Characteristic
LINES, SKETCHY--Timidity
Need for precision; meticulous
Expansiveness under stress
DiLeo, 1973
Buck, 1948
Handler & Reyher, 1964
PAPER-BASING--Feelings of
insecurity; low self-assurance
Dependency
Concrete orientation
Buck, 1950
Hammer, 1958
Levy, 1950
33
20
.000
PAPER-CHOPPING, BOTTOM OF PAGE

Depression of mood tone
Need for support
Buck, 1948
Hammer, 1958
20
.000
PAPER-TURNING--Aggression
and/or negativistic tendencies
Jolles, 1971
29
.000
24
PERSPECTIVE, DISTANT VIEW

Regressive tendencies
Feeling of isolation and/or
rejection; withdrawal
19
53
.003
oo
Barnouw,
00
1969
Jolles, 1971
.000
Reproduced
with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
PLACEMENT OF WHOLE, AT LEFT-Impulsivity, difficulty in

delaying gratification of needs
Tendency toward extroversion
may indicate over-concern
with self
PLACEMENT OF WHOLE, CENTRAL-Normality; relative security
If exactly in center, suggests
lack of flexibility in
interpersonal relationships as
well as insecurity
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
Bradfield, 1964
Hammer, 1969
Urban, 1963
Lakin,
23
.001
oo
1956
VO
77
25
.000
PLACEMENT OF WHOLE, HIGH-High level of energy, or defenses

compensating for low drive level Machover, 1949
Goal oriented, ambitious
individual
Urban, 1963
17
.007
PLACEMENT OF WHOLE, LOW-Feelings of inadequacy

or insecurity
Tendency toward depression,
possibly with attitude of
submission
25
.000
Buck, 1948
DiLeo, 1973
Halpern,
1965
Table 6--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
SIZE, UNUSUALLY LARGE-Tendency to act out aggressive

feelings
Use of repression and other
defenses to compensate for
feelings of inadequacy
Research Author
and Year
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
Zimmerman &
Garfinkle, 1942
Wysocki & Whitney,

1965
SPACE, CONSTRICTION BY PAGE-Frustration caused by restricting

environment, associated with
feelings of hostility and desire
to react aggressively
Haworth & Rabin, 1960
Feelings of inferiority
Johnson, 1973
22
.000
16
.004
.003
House
DOUBLEDOOR--Frequently seen in
Adults who want a mate or want
to keep their mate
Burns,
1987
23
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
FLOWERS, DAISY OR TULIP-LIKE-Immaturity

Regression or schizoid
tendencies
Flowers frequently represent
people in the drawer's life
Research Author
and Year
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
Buck, 1948
Hammer, 1954b
Jolles, 1971
35
.000
HOUSE, LARGE--Frustration,
Possibly due to limiting
environment
Use of fantasy and/or
compensatory defenses
Buck, 1950
Buck, 1950
35
.000
ROOF, SHADING OF--Anxiety

Use of fantasy
Buck, 1969
Jolles, 1971
18
.023
SHRUBS,DRAWN HAPHAZARDLY OR
ALONG WALKWAY Implies mild
anxiety at reality level and
conscious attempt to channel
and control anxiety
Jolles,
17
.035
29
12
27
.012
WINDOWS, CURTAINED Withdrawal

tendencies; reserved
accessibility
Consciously controlled
socializing with implied
anxiety
1971
<x>
(->
Hammer, 1958
Buck, 1950
Table 6--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
WINDOWS, OVAL-- In women,

Liberal nonconformist attitudes
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
Marzolf & Kirchner,

1972
17
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
.000
Tree
BARK, CAREFULLY DRAWN--Suggests

Compulsiveness and over-concern
With environmental interactions
'>
Jolles,
1971
BARK, DEPICTED AS EVENLY SPACED

VINE-LIKE VERTICAL LINES
Schizoid characteristics
Hammer,
BARK, EASILY AND APPROPRIATELY

DRAWN-- Normality
Buck, 1966
13
1954b
BARK, INCONSISTENTLY OR
HEAVILY DRAWN--Anxiety
Anxiety and hostility
Jolles, 1971
Buck, 1966
BRANCHES, EXTENDING BEYOND

TOP OF PAPER--Emphasis on
satisfaction of fantasies
Impulsivity
Buck, 1950
Levine & Sapolsky,
.049
10
.012
12
.035
28
1969
19
17
.000
.001
Table 6 Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
BRANCHES, SHADED-- Labile and

Insecure feelings
Somatization of symptoms;
Agitated depressiveness
Levine & Sapolsky,
1969
13
.049
LEAVES, NUMEROUS-- Feigned

productivity with possible
obsessive-compulsiveness
Levine & Sapolsky,
1969
11
,006
Koch, 1952
to
SCAR ON TRUNK--Representation
of trauma
Levine & Galanter,
1953
35
TREE, LARGE--Over-concern with

self, most notably if tree is
in center of page
Levine & Sapolsky,
1969
68
,000
TREE, LARGE BUT CONTAINED

WITHIN PAGE Acutely aware of
self in environment. Likely to
attempt to secure satisfaction
in activity rather than fantasy
Jolles,
56
.000
19
.000
TREE, VERY LARGE Aggressive

tendencies
Over-compensatory behavior
and/or use of fantasy
Buck,
1971
27
000
1948
Buck,1950
Table 6--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
TRUNK, BROAD WITH DIMINUTIVE

BRANCH STRUCTURE--Debilitating
frustration regarding
satisfaction of basic needs
Feelings of environmental
constriction and aggressive
tendencies
Buck, 1950
TRUNK, OUTER EDGES DARKLY

DRAWN--Conscious need to
maintain psychological
stability
Hammer, 1954b
TRUNK, SHADED, ESPECIALLY

IF DEEP--Feelings of
inferiority
Perhaps psychosomatic
conditions
Buck,
Buck,
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
1966
,031
18
.043
12
,003
11
,001
1948
Levine & Sapolsky,
1969
Person
ARMS, BEHIND BACK Reluctance

regarding openness
Need for greater control of
aggressive and hostile drives
Urban, 1963
Urban,
1963
Table 6 Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
ARMS, HELD LIMP AT SIDES-Ineffective personality

ARMS, OMITTED Feelings of
guilt and inadequacy;
indication of withdrawal
If in drawing of opposite
sex, possible feeling of
heterosexual rejection
Research Author
and Year
Levy,
1950
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
11
.001
16
.000
Kokonis, 1972
Machover,
1949
vo
CJI
ARMS, RELAXED--Dealing
positively with interpersonal
relationships
Jolles,
BELT BUCKLE, EMPHASIS OF

Dependent tendencies
Machover,
BREASTS, EMPHASIZED-Psychosexual and emotional

immaturity in males
Probable strong oral and
maternal dependency in males
Identification with a dominant
and productive mother in
females
Possible exhibition or
narcissism in females
Levy,
Urban,
1971
1951
13
.021
40
.000
1958
1963
Machover,
McElhaney,
1951
1969
13
.000
Table 6--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
BREASTS, OMMISSION OF--By

females, feelings of immaturity
Uncharitable feelings toward
children
Possible schizophrenia
BUTTONS, EMPHASIZED OR
NUMEROUS Immaturity
When drawn compulsively,
regression
When midline is emphasized,
preoccupation with self and/or
somatic disorders is suspected
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
Brown, 1958
Machover, 1949
Burton & Sjoberg,
1964
Schildkrout, Shenker,
Sonnenblick, 1972
Wolk,
Urban,
24
10
22
.026
&
cn
1969
1963
EARRINGS, EMPHASIS ON
Possibility of exhibitionistic
tendencies
Paranoid feelings
Levy, 1958
McElhaney, 1969
EARS, AS QUESTION MARKS-Possible paranoid conditions
McElhaney,
1969
31
.000
.008
18
.000
Table 6 Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
EARS, EMPHASIZED--Possible
Auditory handicap with
Associated concern
accented sensitivity to
criticism
Ideas of reference
Auditory hallucinations
Research Author
and Year
Machover, 1951
Landisberg, 1969
Deabler, 1969
Machover,
EYELASHES, IN DETAIL If
drawn by males, possible
homosexual tendencies
EYES, UNUSUALLY LARGE OR

REINFORCED Suspicion, perhaps
paranoid tendencies
Anxiety
Overly sensitive to social
opinion
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
Levy, 1958
EYEBROWS, ELABORATE
TREATMENT OF-Indication that
uninhibited behavior is
distasteful; possibility of
over-grooming
EYES, PERIPHERY REINFORCED

Possible paranoia
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
15
.001
29
.000
DiLeo, 1973
15
.000
Reznikoff & Nicholas,

1958
10
.039
41
22
.000
1949
& Sonnenblick, 1972
Machover, 1958
Machover,
1958
Table 6--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
FEET, OMITTED Feeling that

environment is too limiting,
with dependency
FINGERS, LONG AND SPIKE-LIKEPrimitive aggressive
tendencies
Associated with paranoid
processes, psychosomatic
disorders, and hypertensiveness
HAIR, EMPHASIS UPON-Expression
of virility strivings and over
concern with sexual matters
Attempt to compensate for
feelings of sexual inadequacy
or impotency
HANDS, CONCEALED IN POCKETS
Occasionally represents
compulsive masturbatory
activity
Associated with loafing or
delinquent behavior
HANDS, COVERING PELVIC AREAPossible self-stimulatory
practices
Fear of sexual advances in
female drawing
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
Evans & Marmorston,1963
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
44
12
.000
.016
53
15
44
.000
.008
11
.006
Goldstein & Rawn, 1957
Shneidman,
Gilbert,
Levy,
1958
1969
1950
DiLeo, 1973
McElhaney,
Hammer,
Urban,
1969
1965
1963
00
Table 6--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
HANDS, UNUSUALLY SMALLInsecurity

Helplessness
HEAD, UNUSUALLY LARGEGrandiose ego-expansive
tendencies
If very large, paranoia and
narcissism are suggested
Over-intellectual aspirations
Fantasy is basic source of
satisfaction
Research Author
and Year
DiLeo, 1973
Hammer, 1954b
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
10
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
.039
Levy, 1958
to
>>
Machover, 1951
Levy, 1958
Urban,
1963
10
.002
13
.000
HEAD, WITHOUT BODY-Possible

schizophrenic condition
Baldwin,
LEGS, CUT OFF BY BOTTOM OF

PAPER Individual may feel that
autonomy has been lost
Buck, 1966
23
.000
Michal-Smith &
Morgenstern, 1969
17
.001
Machover, 1949
35
.000
LEGS, OMITTED Feeling of being

unable to move
LIPS, FULL Possibly

narcissistic, sensual, or
dependent individual
1964
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
LIPS, FULL IN MALE FIGURE

By males, effeminate
tendencies; if with lipstick,
homosexual tendencies
Machover,
MIDLINE, EMPHASIZED Possible

low self-esteem, accompanied
inferiority feelings
Bodwin & Bruck,
MOUTH, OVEREMPHASIS UPONPsychosexual deviations,

fixations, immaturity.
Often
expressive of guilt feelings
and/or anxiety occasioned by
oral-erotic or oral-aggressive
impulses
Jolles, 1971
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
15
1949
1960
56
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
30
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
70
.002
.007
100
Table 6--Continued.
17
.003
NOSE, FAINT, SHADED, OR

TRUNCATED If by males, fear of
castration, perhaps
autoeroticism
If by females, penis envy and
hostile feelings toward males
Machover,
1949
28
14
.000
PERSON FACING FORWARI>-Possible

indication of accessibility or
frankness
Machover,
1949
82
13
82
.000
Hammer,
1953a
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
POCKETS, EMPHASIZED In males,

dependency and infantilism
Affectional needs unsatisfied
In females, emphasis upon
independence
Research Author
and Year
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
Levy, 1958
Machover, 1958
22
Urban, 1963
,002
POSTURE, RELAXED AND STANDING

Normality
Urban, 1963
73
14
45
.000
POSTURE, RIGID Possible

anxiety, may result from
attempt at careful impulse
and fantasy control
Gilbert,
21
.000
SHOES, EMPHASIZED In males,

involutional syndrome, perhaps
with impotency overtones
If with numerous details,
suggestion of an obsessive
and feminine individual
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission
Table 6--Continued.
1969
Machover,
194 9
Levine & Sapolsky,
1969
SHOULDERS, EMPHASIZED-By
females, possible masculine
protest
Urban,
SHOULDERS, OMITTED-Possible
schizophrenia
Brain damaged conditions
Burton & Sjoberg, 1964

Holzberg & Wexler, 1950
1963
33
10
.000
15
.002
15
.019
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
SHOULDERS, VERY BROADTendency to act-out,

possibility of aggression or
uncertainty about sexual
feelings, may be an attempt
at compensation
STANCE, BROAD Possible
acting-out tendencies
spawned by defiance of
authority and/or insecurity
When in the middle of the page,
possible assertive potential
TEETH, PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED
Aggression or sadistic
tendencies
Frequently seen in drawings of
schizophrenics, hysterics, and
mental defectives, though
occasionally in drawings of
aggressive normals
TROUSER FLY, EMPHASIZED
concern or conflict regarding
sexuality
Research Author
and Year
Levy, 1950
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
.016
26
.000
15
.001
23
.006
102
Table ^--Continued.
Hammer,
1969
Shneidman,
1958
Halpern, 1965
Hammer,
1958
McElhaney,
1969
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
TRUNK, OMITTED-Organicity or
mental retardation
Adjustment to school is poor
Denial of body drives
Research Author
and Year
Mundy, 1972
Koppitz, 1968
Jolles, 1971
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
15
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
.000
103
Table 6 Continued.
104
There were 34 emotional indicators that were found
significantly more often on the K-H-T-P drawings than on
the H-T-P drawings.
indicators,
Table 7 contains the 34 emotional
their definitions,
each definition,
definition,
the research author for
the year of the research for the
the number of H-T-P drawings where the
indicator was present only on that test,
the number of
K-H-T-P drawings where the indicator was present only on

that test,
the number of protocols where the indicator
was present on both tests,
and the significance.
The emotional indicators in Table 7 are listed

under the headings of general drawing characteristic,
house,
tree,
person,
actions,
styles,
and symbols.
These
headings are used to categorize emotional indicators in

the projective drawing literature.
The emotional
indicators are listed in alphabetical order within each

category.
For the presentation of this chapter,
Table 7
provides some of the same information found in Appendix

B.
Appendix B lists all of the 499 indicators that were
found in all of the drawings whereas Table 7 refers only

to the 34 indicators which were found significantly more
often on the K-H-T-P drawings than on the H-T-P drawings.
Emotional Indicators Found Significantly More Often on the K-H-T-P

Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
General Drawing Characteristic
CLOUDSGeneralized anxiety
Anxiety is something hanging
over one's head.
The number
of clouds is often related to
the number of people in the
family or love triangle
Jacks, 1969
Burns, 1987
17
000
SIZE, UNUSUALLY SMALL-Low

self-concept
Anxiety
Withdrawal tendencies
Mundy, 1972
Waehner, 1946
Gilbert, 1969
48
000
House
CHIMNEY, OMITTED-Lack of
interpersonal warmth in the
home
Difficulty with male sexuality,
but less serious than
prominence of chimney
Mursell,1969
Buck, 1950
22
46
66
.005
105
Table 7
Table 1--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
HOUSE, SMALL-Tendency to
withdraw
Feelings of inadequacy
TREES, DRAWN WITH HOUSEStrong needs for reliance
on others; dependency
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
Hammer, 1958
Buck, 1950
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
25
14
.001
178
26
.000
14
34
59
.006
14
29
32
.033
33
.000
Levine & Sapolsky,

1969
Buck, 1948
Tree
CROWN, CLOUD-LIKE Use of

fantasy with avoidance of
reality
Low energy level
ROOTS, OMITTED WITHOUT
BASELINE Inadequacy feelings;
insecurity
TREE, SMALL Somewhat withdrawn

individual with feelings of
inadequacy
Koch, 1952
Koch, 1952
Michal & Morgenstern,

1969
Buck,
1948
106
Often represent specific

people in the subject's
family
Research Author
and Year
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
Person
EARS, OMITTED Suggests auditory

hallucinations; sometimes seen
in well-adjusted mental
defectives
Jolles,
EYES, OMITTED Ineffective,

undiscerning personality
Possible visual hallucinations
Schizophrenia
Possible voyeurism
HAND, MITTEN-LIKEAggression,
currently repressed or
suppressed
Possible regressive tendencies
1971
28
.003
Gurvitz, 1951
Buck, 1950
Deabler, 1969
Levy, 1950
12
.000
Buck, 1950
McElhaney, 1969
18
.000
22
.000
23
.022
INCLUSION OF EXTRA FIGURES

Disruptive influence protruding
into the family
Closeness within the extended
family
Reynolds,
1978
Reynolds,
1978
MOUTH, GRINNING, DEPICTED BY

WIDE, UPTURNED LINE-Possible
need to maintain fagade of
congeniality
Urban,
1963
107
Table 7--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
MOUTH, OMITTED-Guilt regarding

oral aggressive behavior
Depression
Research Author
and Year
Machover, 1949
Koppitz, 1966
POSTURE, SEATED Possible

significant insecurity
PROFILE, AMBIVALENT Uneasy in
social situations
Guilt feelings; possible
dishonesty
PROFILE, COMPLETE Reluctance
to face others; evasive
Possible maladjustive
withdrawal
Interpersonal relationships
tend to be reserved
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
12
000
185
.000
& Sonnenblick, 1972
24
000
Allen,
1958
26
,001
Urban,
1963
10
,002
57
,000
MOVEMENT, NON-VIOLENT-Possible
flexibility and normality; often
associated with bright, normal,
individuals
Jacks,
NOSE, OMITTED Possible feelings
of castration
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
1969
108
Table 7--Continued.
Machover,
Buck,
Exner,
194 9
1969
1962
Buck,1950
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
Actions
JUMPINGWhen jumping rope, a

subtle form of isolation
When just jumping, a common
action
Burns & Kaufman,
1972
Burns & Kaufman, 1972
000
12
109
Table 1--Continued.
KITE FLYING Desire to be free

and break out of a restrictive
environment
Burns & Kaufman,
1972
MOWINGAssociated with a
"cutting" and controlling
personality
Burns & Kaufman,
1972
PICKING Not defined in the

literature
.008
,002
10
.016
13
,000
PLAYING ALONEA common action
STANDINGA common action
Burns & Kaufman,
1972
.008
SWINGINGA common action
Burns & Kaufman,
1972
19
,000
WALKINGA common action
Burns & Kaufman,
1972
18
.000
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
Styles
ATTACHMENT OF 2 FIGURES-Suggests
some inability of the individual
to untangle and separate the
different dimensions of their
lives
ENCAPSULATION Suggests a need to

isolate or remove a threatening
person
Reynolds,
44
.000
23
.000
110
Table 7 Continued.
1978
Symbols
BALL Represents energy or force
Burns & Kaufman,
1972
22
.000
JUMP ROPE Represents protection

from psychological interaction
Burns & Kaufman,
1972
10
.002
1972
.008
KITE Represents an escape
Burns
& Kaufman,
Table 7--Continued.
Emotional Indicator
and Definition
Research Author
and Year
LAWNMOWERAssociated with selfcompetitive feelings, striving

for dominance, and attempting
to control.
When belonging to
another, it represents fear or
feelings of threat or
competition from a dominant
individual
SWING IN TREE In women,
anxiety-free state; liberal
attitude with willingness to
experiment
A form of encapsulation if a
person is sitting in the swing
Burns & Kaufman,
No. of Times
Found Only
on H-T-P
No. of times
Found Only
on K-H-T-P
No. of times
Found on Both
Tests
,004
1972
111
Marzolf & Kirchner,

Burns & Kaufman,
1972
1972
19
,003
112
In looking at the data,
Tables 6 and 7 reveal that
the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P have evoked different emotional

indicators from the research participants.
There were a
total of 108 emotional indicators that were significantly

found more often on one test than the other.
The H-T-P
revealed 74 indicators significantly found more often on

it than on the K-H-T-P.
The K-H-T-P revealed 34
indicators that were significantly found more often on it

than on the H-T-P.
The H-T-P elicited more than twice as
many indicators as the K-H-T-P.

Table 8 provides a summary of the number of
emotional indicators from Tables 6 and 7 grouped under
the category to which the indicators belong.
In looking
at Table 8, the H-T-P had 9 more indicators than the K-HT-P under the heading of general drawing characteristic,
4 more indicators under the heading of house,
under the heading of tree,
of person.
11 more
and 31 more under the heading
The K-H-T-P had eight actions,
two styles,
and five symbols while the H-T-P has none in these

categories.
Table 8 provides a comparison of the numbers
of emotional indicators by test by category,
and shows
where the tests are strongest and weakest in producing

emotional ind icators.
113
Table 8
Summary of Emotional Indicators by Category
Found Significantly
More Often on H-T-P
General
Drawing
Characteristic
Found Significantly
More Often on K-H-T-P
11
Tree
14
Person
42
11
Actions
Styles
Symbols
74
34
House
Total E. I.s
Note.
E.I.
= Emotional Indicator
114
Chapter Summary
This chapter presented the demographic data of the
sample,
the emotional indicators found in the sample,
testing the hypothesis,
and the presentation of the
fi ndings.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY,
DISCUSSION,
IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary,

the findings,
implications of the study,
recommendations for further research.
discussion of
and
The summary
briefly describes the statement of the problem,

overview of related research,
methodology,
question,
sampling,
hypothesis,
an
purpose of the study,
instrumentation,
the research
and results of the hypothesis
testing.
Summary
Statement of the Problem
The Draw-A-Family drawing is a projective test
that provides the clinician with information about the
relationships in a family,
or herself in the family,
tendencies of the drawer.
how the drawer sees himself

and personality traits and
The instructions given are to
draw everyone in the family.
This test has been in
existence since 1951.

115
116
In 1970 Robert Burns produced a projective test
called the Kinetic-Family-Drawing
(K-F-D).
the Draw-A-Family drawing as a basis,
He used
but he added
instructions to draw every person in the family doing

something.
Burns believed that the addition of actions
would add valuable projective data to the test.
The
K-F-D has become a very popular projective test for

evoking information about a family.
In 1987 Robert Burns published a book
(1987)
where he stated that he has taken the House-Tree-Person

drawing
(H-T-P), developed in 1948 by John Buck,
and has
improved it by having all of the figures drawn on one

page and has changed the instructions to include an
action.
He calls this the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person
drawing
(K-H-T-P).
tree,
and person,
The H-T-P instructions have a house,
each drawn on a separate page.
The
H-T-P has been used by clinicians for years as a

projective test for obtaining clinical data about the
drawer.
Burns does not provide any research on the
K-H-T-P in his book
(1987), nor has the test appeared in
the projective literature except for one small

reference.
This study looks at which test is the
117
better o n e : the H-T-P or the K-H-T-P with regard to
eliciting emotional indicators in the drawings.
Overview of Related Literature

In 1948,
Person drawing
John Buck developed the House-Tree(Buck,
1948).
be a test of intelligence,
It was originally meant to
but Buck soon found that
there were non-intellective factors that gave

information about the subject's personality.
Buck
investigated and researched the non-intellective factors

that best differentiated between maladjusted and
adjusted su bje ct s.
the test
(Buck,
Buck further developed and refined
194 9, 1951),
but he did not concern
himself with reliability and validity studies

1996).
(Brooke,
Others who have conducted this type of study
have found inter-rater reliability to be as low as

and as high as
& Kirchner,
.92
(Kuhlman & Bieliauskas,
1972; Vass,
1998).
.42
1976; Marzolf
Acceptable test-retest
stability at 4 to 6 weeks was found by Marzolf and

Kirchner
(1970).
At the same time that Buck was conducting his

work on the H-T-P, Wilfred Hulse was using the Draw-AFamily drawing to obtain information about children and
their f am ili es.
Hulse stated the drawing gave
118
conscious and unconscious data that would not be heard
in a clinical interview
(Hulse,
1951,
1952).
This was
also the same time that Karen Machover was studying

personality projection in the human figure drawing.
Machover referred to the drawings as having graphic
features or drawing traits,
and she spent over 15 years
to derive specific meanings to these traits

1949).
(Machover,
These traits and specific meanings are called
emotional indicators and definitions in this research.

Elizabeth Koppitz
human figure drawing.
(1968)
also worked with the
She distinguished between drawing
characteristics that reflect a child's level of

maturation and social-emotional concerns.
She called
the drawing characteristics associated with maturation

as developmental items,
and those denoting social-
emotional concerns were called emotional indicators.

While Koppitz was conducting her work,
Robert
Burns was developing the Kinetic-Family-Drawing.
Burns
took the Draw-A-Family drawing and changed the

instructions to include every family member doing
something
actions,
(Burns & Kaufman,

styles,
1970) .
Burns defined
and symbols from the drawings and was
interested in the projective material from the
119
relationships and interactions of the figures.
These
new components in the drawings were found to produce

meaningful information about the interrelationships of
the family.
A review of the research on projective drawings
in 1993 found that the Human Figure Drawing proved to be
the strongest projective technique.
The H-T-P,
K-F-D,
and K-S-D were found to be weaker but usable

particularly when combined with a concurrent measure
(Neale & Rosal,
1993).
A national survey of graduate
school trainers and school psychologists found that the

H-T-P was frequently used or always used by 63% of the
subjects,
and the K-F-D was frequently used or always
used by 62% of the subjects
(Prout,
1983).
In 1987 Robert Burns devised a projective test

called the Kinetic-House-Tree-Person drawing
1987).
(Burns,
Burns took the H-T-P drawing and changed the
instructions to have all of the figures drawn on the

same page and to include an action.
Burns stated that
the K-H-T-P would provide a better clinical picture of

the subject than the H-T-P because of his improvements.
There was no reliability or validity studies provided by
Burns,
and there was no such information found in the
120
literature
(Brooke,
1996).
To date there is very little
known about the K-H-T-P drawing and Burns's claim of its

superiority to the H-T-P.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to compare the H-T-P
with the K-H-T-P for the emotional indicators found on
the tests.
The number of emotional indicators would be
an indication of the effectiveness of each test in

eliciting clinical information from the drawer.
Methodology
This research was a passive-observational study
where the variables were observed and not manipulated.
The drawings were analyzed for the presence of variables
called emotional indicators.
There was no intervention
or control of the independent variables in the study.
Sampling
The subjects in the study were 204 college
students,
18 years of age and over,
universities:
from two
one from Michigan and one from Illinois.
The students were non-clinical,
meaning that they were
not currently seeing a clinician for therapy.
The
121
students were screened for any knowledge of the H-T-P
and the K-H-T-P and did not qualify as a participant if
they were familiar with either test.
Instrumentation
The instrumentation for the study was the HouseTree-Person projective test devised by John Buck and the
Kinetic-House-Tree-Person projective test developed by
Robert Burns.
The independent variables were the
emotional indicators found on the drawings.

variables were dichotomous;
The
their values were either "0"
for being absent from the drawing or 1" for being

present on the drawing.
There were a total of 499
variables that were found on the drawings,
and they are
listed in Appendix B.
Research Question
This study sought to answer the following
research question:
Does the occurrence of emotional indicators found
on the H-T-P drawings differ significantly from those
found on the K-H-T-P drawing?
122
Hypothesis
The hypothesis of this research states:
There is
no significant difference in the frequency of occurrence

of emotional indicators that are found in the H-T-P
drawings and the K-H-T-P drawings.
Results of the Hypothesis

Testing
With 108 out of 499 variables being found
significantly more often on one test than the other,
the
null hypothesis is rejected.

The results of the study confirm that the
emotional indicators found on the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P
drawings do differ significantly.
differ,
Not only do they
but the categories of where the emotional
indicators are listed also differ.

The results showed that there were 74 emotional
indicators that were found significantly more often on
the H-T-P than the K-H-T-P,
and there were 34 emotional
indicators that were found significantly more often on

the K-H-T-P than the H-T-P.
The H-T-P elicited
indicators under the categories of general drawing

characteristics,
house,
tree,
and person.
The K-H-T-P
123
evoked indicators under those categories and also under
actions,
styles,
and s y m b o l s .
The H-T-P drawings
produced more than twice as many indicators as the

K-H-T-P drawings.
The H-T-P had 9 more indicators than the K-H-T-P
under the heading of general drawing characteristic,
more indicators under the heading of house,
under the heading of tree,
of person.
11 more
and 31 more under the heading
The K-H-T-P had eight actions,
two styles,
and five symbols while the H-T-P had no indictors in

these categories.
Discussion
The Test Comparison
The null hypothesis has been rejected.
The two
tests evoked different emotional indicators.

had twice as many indicators as the K-H-T-P,
K-H-T-P produced actions,
H-T-P did n o t .
styles,
The H-T-P
and the
and symbols while the
Each test has been shown to have merit,
but which will give a better clinical picture?

actions,
styles,
and symbols
Do the
(and the other indicators)
found on the K-H-T-P give more clinical information than

all of the indicators found on the H-T-P?
124
In conducting this research both tests had
components taken away.
The H-T-P was missing the PDI,
which added much more information to the drawing.
There
was no clinical interview or history gathered on the

subjects that could shed light on the personal meanings
of the actions,
styles,
symbols,
and other indicators
which Burns had done with his examples in his book on

the K-H-T-P.
Even though the two tests are very similar in
name,
they appear to be very dissimilar when comparing
the two.
This research seemed to be trying to compare
an apple with an orange.
In order to put the two tests
on an equal footing for statistical purposes,

had to have their "peels" removed
analogy)
possible.
they each
(to continue the
so that they could look alike as much as

But the "peels" contribute to their
therapeutic value,
each in their own way.
It was hoped
that there was no discredit paid to either test in doing

this,
knowing that it would change the two test's
results.
Hammer
1950s,
(1997)
stated that as far back as the
he and John Buck,
the author of the H-T-P,
attempted to have the house,
tree,
and person drawn on
125
one page.
Hammer said that they found the
relationship of the figures adding to the clinical

data, but they also found that they lost the larger and
more detailed figures when the figures were drawn on
separate pages.
They felt that the losses outweighed
the gains and kept the test instructions to have the

figures drawn on separate pages.
When Burns originated the K-F-D from the Draw-AFamily drawing,
the addition of having everyone in the
family doing something seemed to make a lot of sense.

family of people would include a lot of actions,
least two,
being done,
or at
and this would add projective data by what is

who is doing it, and with whom they are
in te rac tin g.
But going from the H-T-P to the K-H-T-P does lend
itself to actions like the other test did.
It is most
likely that the tree and house would not be performing

the action.
The tree could sway or tip over,
house could lean or collapse,
but it is most likely that
the person would perform the action.

family but one person,
and the
There is not a
so there is one action.
person can interact with the house and tree,

is not a family interacting.
This
but there
The action and interaction
126
can add to the therapeutic value of the drawing,
but not
to the extent that they have added therapeutic value on

the K-F-D.
Perhaps this is why we do not find the
K-H-T-P in the literature like we do with the K-F-D.

Hammer
(1997)
stated that when speaking about the
basic rationale of projective techniques,
it may be
better to leave the option of projection of movement

open to the drawer.
the examiner,
When there is no structuring from
the drawer can make a static person or one
involved in an action,
which would be considered to be
richer in projective meaning.
That is true.
However,
as seen in this study, most subjects do not include an

action on the H-T-P. There were only 10 subjects who
did,
so when instructing the subject to draw an action,
at least there will be one provided.
Findings on the H-T-P

The list of emotional indicators found
significantly more often on the H-T-P than on the
K-H-T-P shows that there are 11 indicators under the
heading of general drawing characteristic,
house,
14 under tree,
42 under person,
indicators under actions,
styles,
7 under
and no
and symbols.
More
127
than 75% of the indicators for the H-T-P came from the
person and tree drawing combined.
There were indicators
having to do with the person's arms, belt, breasts,

buttons,
feet,
earrings,
fingers,
ears,
hair,
eyebrows,
hands,
mouth,
nose, pockets,
teeth,
trouser fly,
head,
posture,
eyelashes,
legs,
shoes,
and trunk.
eyes,
lips, midline,
shoulders,
stance,
It appears that there is
a wealth of information provided by the person d r a w i n g .

The tree drawing has indicators that have to do
with the tree's bark, branches,
leaves,
size,
and trunk.
There is not nearly as much information provided in the

tree drawing when compared to the person d r a w i n g .
There are many different definitions showing
various personality traits and tendencies.
But one
definition that showed itself several times is that of

ag g r e s s i o n .
of "paper,
Aggression is defined for the indicators
tu rning"; "size,
unusually l ar ge" ; "space,
constriction by p a g e " ; "tree,

back";
"fingers,
broad";
very large"; "arms,
long and spike-like";
"shoulders,
and "teeth, prominently displayed."
behind
very
Three of
these eight emotional indicators have to do with a large

drawing.
There are several emotional indicators that need
128
a fairly large figure so that the indicators can be
drawn.
A few examples of these are "bark,
evenly spaced vine-like vertical lines";

shaded"; "leaves,
treatment of";
reinforced";
depicted by
"branches,
n u m ero us" ; "eyebrows, elaborate
"eyelashes,
"lips,
full";
in detail";
"lips,
and "trouser fly emphasized,"
"eyes,
full in male figure";
The H-T-P would lend
itself to these types of indicators more than

K-H-T-P because of the figures
periphery
being drawn
the
on a separate
p a g e . There is more room for a larger figure and more

e m bel lishments.
In summary,
74 emotional indicators were found
significantly more often on the H-T-P than on the

K-H-T-P.
There were emotional indicators present in the
categories of general drawing characteristics, h o u s e ,

tree,
and person;
and there were no indicators in the
categories of actions,
styles,
and s y m bol s. There were
varied definitions of the emotional indicators showing

many different personality traits,
but the most common
trait found was aggression.
Findings on the K-H-T-P

The list of the emotional indicators that were
129
found more often on the K-H-T-P than the H-T-P shows
that there were 2 indicators under the heading of
general drawing characteristics,
under tree,
styles,
11 under person,
and 5 under s y m bol s.
3 were under house,
8 under actions,
2 under
The definitions of the
emotional indicators are varied,
and the one trait that
showed up the most was "withdrawal," which was the

definition of four in di cat ors :
small";
"size,
"house,
small";
"tree,
unusually s m a l l " ; and "profile,
c o mp l e t e ."
One of the reasons for the different emotional
indicators showing up on the two tests has to do with
the dissimilarity of the directions of the two t e s t s .
The K-H-T-P directions ask that an action be drawn
whereas the H-T-P does n o t .
Besides the eight a c t i ons ,
these directions also caused the five symbols to be

produced on d r a w i n g s .
This is because every symbol is
connected to an a c t i o n .
For example,
the action "lawn
mowing" has a lawnmower in the drawing.

"playing alone" has a ball d r a w n .
The action
One of the
styles called "encapsulation" was also produced from

two a c t i o n s : The person jumping rope is encapsulated
with the jump rope,
and the person sitting on a swing is
130
encapsulated with the ropes of the swing. Burns
(1987)
had said that an action would add clinical value to the

H-T-P,
and in summary,
caused eight actions,
asking for an action to be drawn

five symbols,
and one style to be
found significantly more often on the K-H-T-P than on

the H-T-P.
Another dissimilarity of the directions of the two
tests involves the H-T-P having each figure drawn
on a separate sheet whereas the K-H-T-P has all figures
drawn on the same sheet.
Burns
(1987)
stated that the
figures could interact when they were drawn on one sheet,

and one of the styles that reached significance
was "attachment of two figures."
This style is present
when two figures are touching in the drawing.

"Picking," "standing," and "walking" were the
other three actions that have not been previously
discussed.
"Picking" is not defined by Burns.
The
closest he comes to this is listing the action "picking

up" as being a common action.
"Picking" in the drawings,
of this sample had to do with a figure picking fruit off

a tree or picking flowers.
There was no reference to
this type of action in any of Burns's work so this

action will remain without a definition.
"Standing" and
131
"walking" were defined by Burns as being a common action
of an individual
(Burns & Kaufman,
1972).
One emotional indicator that will always be

present on a K-H-T-P drawing is called "trees,
with house."
The directions ask for a house,
person to be drawn on the same page,
drawn
tree,
and
therefore it is
required rather than chosen to be drawn.
That tends to
negate the meaning of the indicator when it is found on

the K-H-T-P.
This indicator has a definition of a
strong need for reliance on others

1969),
(Levine & Sapolsky,
and often the trees represent specific people in
the subject's family
(Buck,
1948).
Another emotional indicator that should almost

always be present on the K-H-T-P drawing is "movement,
non-violent."
instructions,
Since drawing an action is part of the

there will most likely be some type of
action on the page.
One exception to this is where the
action drawn is "looking," "gazing," "standing," or

other states of being.
"Movement,
non-violent" is
not used with these examples because the person is not

moving.
In this study,
there were 194 students who drew
an action indicating "movement,
n o n- vio len t."
The dissimilarities of the directions of the
132
tests account for the eight actions,
symbols,
and one house indicator.
two styles,
five
Thus 16 emotional
indicators out of a total of 34 were found significantly

more often on the K-H-T-P than on the H-T-P.
There is a concern involving three emotional
indicators:
"House,
small";
"tree,
small";
and "size,
unusually small."
These indicators are found under the
headings of house,
tree,
Burns's book
(1987)
and person respectively.
on the K-H-T-P,
In
he says to use the
emotional indicators that have been defined in the

projective literature when analyzing the K-H-T-P.
He
lists many of the indicators in the appendix of his book

(Burns,
1987).
These emotional indicators have been
based on either a house,
tree,
or person drawn
separately on a 8h " by 11" sheet of paper.
Since
Burns's instructions for the K-H-T-P are to draw all

figures on one sheet,
the figures might be drawn smaller
(than what would be drawn for the H-T-P)

get them all on the same page.
to
There is a question of
these three emotional indicators having the same meaning

on the K-H-T-P as they do on the H-T-P.
With the concern established over the size of the
figures when having to draw all figures on the same
133
page,
it is interesting to see the indicator of
"clouds" showing up on the K-H-T-P.
"Clouds" is
definitely an embellishment to the drawing because it

was not specifically asked for in the directions of the
test.
There would be more room on the pages of the
H-T-P drawings to add clouds,
but this was not the case,
showing that the concern over size mentioned earlier

does not prevent this embellishment to occur.
Another
emotional indicator along this same line is "inclusion

of extra figures."
Again,
it would seem that there
would be more room on the pages of the H-T-P drawings to

add extra figures,
but this did not occur.
Four emotional indicators have to do with the

omission of facial features.
"eyes,
omitted";
"mouth,
These are "ears,
omitted";
and "nose,
omitted";
omitted."
It was observed that many times the person drawn on the

K-H-T-P was so small that it was difficult to decipher
what facial features were present,
and other times the
small person was simply missing facial features.
Their
H-T-P drawing of the person would be larger and possess

the facial features.
In this case it seems to suggest
that the size of the person plays a role in the four

indicators of facial features.
134
Van Hutton
(1994)
found the same results in her
research when asking for a house,

drawn on the same page.
tree,
and person to be
(This was not a K-H-T-P,
H-T-P on one page according to her study.)
but an
Van Hutton
next asked for a person to be drawn on a separate sheet

of paper.
She found that the person drawn with the
house and tree did not have much detail,

sketchy,
and insignificant.
and was small,
While she stated that the
small and sketchy figures add to the interpretation of

the drawing,
the person drawn on a separate sheet
provided much more detail for clinical analysis.

The number of times that these indicators were
found only on the K-H-T-P is not particularly large,
but
it is worth noting that this finding was also found in

the Van Hutton work
In summary,
(1994).
34 emotional indicators were found
significantly more often on the K-H-T-P than on the

H-T-P.
There were emotional indicators present in every
category,
and there are varied definitions of the
emotional indicators showing many different personality

t r a i t s . The one trait that was found the most often was
"with dra wa l."
While some of the indicators were
questioned earlier for their validity,
these questions
135
are meant only to bring to light some of the possible
problems in trying to compare the two tests by the same
criteria in the projective literature.
Implications
From an analysis of the findings,
the following
implications are made:

1.
The H-T-P drawing and the K-H-T-P drawing
differ in the emotional indicators that were elicited

from each test.
2.
The H-T-P and the K-H-T-P are not
interchangeable tests.
of the other.
One test cannot take the place
They both evoke emotional indicators
from different areas of the drawings.

3.
The different emotional indicators that are
evoked from each test will, many times,
have different
definitions and therefore give a different slant on the

clinical picture of the drawer.
This is not incorrect;
it is just a different emphasis.

4.
When wanting to test for hostility and
aggression,
the H-T-P should be administered instead of
the K-H-T-P.
5.
The H-T-P and the K-H-T-P should both be used
136
in a psychological assessment battery so that there is
more information added to the clinical f in d i n g s .
6.
With more than twice as many emotional
indicators found significantly more often on the H-T-P

than the K-H-T-P,
the H-T-P should be administered when
one projective test is required.
Recommendations
Based on the findings and implications of the
study,
the following recommendations are suggested for
further research in the area of proj ective d r a w i n g s :

1.
Since there is no reliability or validity
information available on the K-H-T-P,
studies should be
conducted with the K-H-T-P to establish the

reliability and validity coef fic ien ts .
2.
This type of study should be replicated to
gain further knowledge into the similarities and

differences of the H-T-P and the K-H-T-P.
3.
Further studies comparing the H-T-P and the
K-H-T-P should be conducted to learn more about

emotional indicators.
It would be beneficial to learn
if emotional indicators appear as clusters,
meaning that
they are always present on a drawing t o g e t h e r .
137
4.
K-H-T-P,
To completely compare the H-T-P and the

studies should be conducted that include all
the components of the tests.

and color drawings done,
The H-T-P would have a PDI
and the participants would have
a clinical interview and history taken so that the

information could be merged with the findings of the KH-T-P.
5.
The works of Buck and Machover are always
referenced in the literature even though their work was

conducted several decades ago.
Both authors stated that
their findings gave a framework for drawing

interpretation,
or correct
but that it is not necessarily complete
(Buck,
1948; Machover,
1949).
They both
stated that work should come after their

findings for validation and refinement of the
interpretation of projective drawings.
Research studies
should be conducted to further the foundation laid by

Buck and Machover instead of stopping with their
findings.
A P P E N D IC E S
APPENDIX A
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
ANDREWS UNIVERSITY
Department of Educational and
Counseling Psychology
Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104
PARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM
The purpose of this research is to compare two types

of projective drawings for the clinical data that can
be obtained from each.
It is expected that this
research will provide some insight into the usefulness
of the projective tests for clinicians who want to
obtain information through drawings.
The proposed data-gathering techniques will include
the following: 1) a House-Tree-Person drawing
completed by the student, and 2) a Kinetic House-TreePerson completed by the student.
Names of the participants will be withheld in the
final report and will not be disclosed at any time to
insure anonymity.
All participants are free at any
time to terminate this consent and withdraw from
participating without any further obligation.
This research will be supervised by Dr. Nancy
Carbonell
from the Educational and Counseling
Psychology department in the School of Education.
If
you have any questions, please call Denise Stoddard at
616-3277128 or 708-7546013, or Dr. Nancy Carbonell at
616-471-3472.
I have read and understood this statement and have had
my questions answered.
I consent to participate in
the research described above and understand that there
is no compensation in return for my participation.
I
also have been given a copy of the consent form.
Signature________________________________________ Date
Witness
Date
140
APPENDIX B
4 99 EMOTIONAL INDICATORS FOUND IN THE STUDY
142
GENERAL DRAWING CHARACTERISTIC
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
17
180
.0 0 0 *
Details,
Atypical
202
.500
Details,
Basic
Omission
200
.250
Details,
Labeled
199
.000
Details,
Non-essential
201
. 000
Details,
Numerous and
Painstakingly
Drawn
18S
.065
Clouds
Distortions,
Moderate
201
1 .000
203
1 .000
191
.549
Ground-line,
Arc-like hill
201
.000
Ground-line,
Darkly drawn
198
.000
115
.775
Distortions,
Severe
Erasure with
Drawing
Ground-line,
Drawn
Spontaneously
40
26
23
143
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Ground-line,
sloping
Downward and
Away from
drawn whole
On either
Side
198
1. 000
Ground-line,
Sloping
Downward to
Right
201
.250
Inclusion of
Extra figures
22
178
.000*
Lines,
Circular and
Uninterrupted
203
1. 000
Lines,
curving
202
1.000
Lines,
dark
191
1. 000
L i n e s , heavy
For specific
Detail
203
1. 000
Lines, jagged
And not joined
200
1.000
Lines,
Scribbled
203
1.000
53
19
128
.003*
steady
84
11
103
.332
Mountains, in
Background
194
.070
Lines,
Sketchy
Lines,
144
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
M ou nta in s,
Spontaneously
Drawn
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
1 . 000
203
20
33
148
.000 *
Paperchopping,
Bottom of page
20
181
.00 0 *
Paperchopping, left
Side of page
22
17
159
.522
PaperChopping,
Right side
Of page
20
12
163
.216
10
16
169
.230
Paper-topping
199
1 . 000
Paper-turning
29
173
Perspective,
Bird's eye
View
197
Paper-basing
Paperchopping,
Top of page
Perspective,
Close view
Perspective,
Distant view
Perspective,
Drawing without
Profile
.000 *
1 .000
198
.063
.0 0 0 *
24
175
64
23
27
90
.671
145
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Placement of
Whole, at left
23
172
.001*
Placement of
Whole, at
Right
200
.625
25
77
98
.000*
Placement of
Whole, high
17
179
.007*
Placement of
Whole, low
25
171
.000*
Placement of
Whole, top
Left corner
197
.125
Pressure,
Constant
37
163
.625
Pressure,
Unusually
Heavy
201
.250
14
182
.289
.3
200
1.000
Redrawing of
Original
202
1. 000
Reinforcement,
General
198
1.000
Placement of
Whole, central
Pressure,
Unusually
Inconsistent
Pressure,
Unusually
Light
146
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Reinforcement,
Specific
194
1.000
Shading,
Absence of
203
1.000
Shading,
Excessive
191
344
202
500
Shading,
Pathoformic
Use of
Shading,
Specific
16
19
160
.089
Shadow
202
1.000
Size, unusually
Large
22
179
000
Size, unusually
Small
148
000^
16
181
004'
Space,
Constriction
By page
48
Transparent
Drawings
200
1.000
Wind
202
1.000
147
HOUSE
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Bedroom
203
1 .000
Blueprint
202
.500
Chimney, at
An angle
199
.063
Chimney,
Emphasis
Upon
18 9
.549
22
20
15
147
.499
197
.125
203
1 .000
Chimney,
Easily drawn
Chimney,
More than
One
Chimney,
Mostly
Hidden
Chimney,
Omitted
66
22
46
70
Chimney,
Prominent
12
16
18
158
Chimney, twoDimensional
194
1 . 000
Chimney, seen
Through
Transparent
Wall or
Ceiling
196
1 .000
.005*
.864
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTFI
Details,
Irrelevant,
Horizontal line
Separating
First and second
Stories
10
193
1. 000
Dimension,
over
emphasized
horizontal
200
1. 000
Dimension,
OverEmphasized
Vertical
196
1. 000
Door, above
Baseline and
Without steps
202
1. 000
Door, back
Or side
186
.754
Door,
Double door
23
166
.003*
Door,
front
178
12
.359
Door,
large
193
.070
Door,
omitted
198
.625
Door,
open
197
1.000
Door,
Recessed or
Hidden
197
.063
Door,
190
.227
small
'
149
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
BO TH
KHTP
B O TH
Door, with
Heavy hinges
And/or lock
201
1.000
Doorknob,
with peephole
200
.500
Doorknob,
Emphasis upon
27
17
102
175
10
18
171
.186
16
16
136
1.000
Endwall, lines
Heavy for this
Detail specif
ically
203
1.000
Fence around
House
193
453
Fireplace
203
1.000
58
Doorknob,
Omitted
Eaves,
Emphasized
36
Flowers, tulip
Or daisy-like
35
151
.000*
Gutters
202
.500
House,
AnthropoMorphic
202
.500
House,
35
164
large
House, rear
View drawn
House,
small
203
14
25
159
000^
1.000
001^
150
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
BO TH
Kitchen
Living room
Pillars,
Unusually
High
Roof, poor
Relation to
Ground floor
Roof,
Shading of
KHTP
18
B O TH
202
1.000
201
1.000
203
1.000
203
176
1.000
.023*
Roof,
Single line
Connecting
Two walls
198
1.000
Roof,
Outline
Darkly drawn
10
183
.629
Roof,
Outline
Lightly drawn
202
.500
Roof,
Unusually
Large
200
.625
Roof, with
Incomplete
Closure of
Apex
200
.625
Shades,
Extension
Beyond
Windows
203
1.000
151
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Sh ru bs, drawn
Haphazardly
Or along
Walkway
Shrubs,
Protectively
Around
House and in
Profusion
BO TH
17
KHTP
B O TH
173
197
.035*
1 .000
Shutters,
Closed
202
.500
Shutters,
Open
11
184
.057
194
1 .000
10
25
19
150
.451
194
1 .000
Sidewalk,
Broad
Sidewalk,
Easily and
Appropriately
Drawn
Sidewalk,
Very long
Sidewalk, wide
At end,
Becoming
Progressively
Narrow toward
House
190
.549
Smoke, blowing
From right to
Left
202
.500
152
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
BO TH
KHTP
B O TH
Smoke, in
Abundance
190
1.000
Smoke,
Narrow line
189
1.000
Trees, drawn
With house
26
178
Vent stack
Protruding
From roof
201
1.000
Walls, baseline
To wall
Heavily drawn
202
.500
Walls, emphasis
On outline
188
.424
Walls,
Incomplete
Connection of
203
1.000
Walls, double
Perspective,
Thin endwalls
201
.250
Walls, outline
Faintly drawn
Walls,
Transparent
202
.500
Windows, absent
From ground
Floor
189
.727
203
.000*
1.000
153
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
Windows,
Appropriate
Number and
size of
KHTP
B O TH
55
17
18
114
1. 000
201
1. 000
27
29
12
136
.012
199
.625
Wi n d o w s , heavy
Reinforcement of
190
.344
W i n d o w s , many
11
181
.057
Windows, many
Panes
13
177
.096
W i n d o w s , omitted
194
1.000
W i n d o w s , open
202
1.000
Windows,
oval
17
179
.000
W i n d o w s , pane
Indicated by
Single,
Dissecting,
Vertical line
198
1. 000
Windows,
Paneless
190
1.000
Windows,
Placement
Lacking
Conformity
195
.289
Windows,
bare
Windows,
Curtained
Windows,
few
154
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
B O TH
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
KHTP
ON
Windows, round
Or semi-circle
13
11
172
.648
W in d o w s , star
203
1.000
W in do ws ,
Triangular
203
1 . 000
Windows,
Unusually
Small
203
1.000
Windows, with
Barred
Appearance
203
1.000
Wi n d o w s , with
Locks
Emphasized
201
.500
B O T H _ ______
155
TREE
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
KHTP
Animal
Peeking from
hole in tree
Apple tree
10
Apples, falling
Or fallen
B O TH
198
. 688
184
815
198
063
Bark,
Carefully
Drawn
13
183
04 9
Bark, depicted
By evenly
Spaced vineLike vertical
Lines
10
193
012
Bark, easily
Drawn
12
187
035
28
157
000
Bark,
Inconsistently
Or heavily
Drawn
17
Branches,
Broken, bent,
Or dead
199
.375
Branches,
Extending
Beyond top
Of paper
19
179
.001*
Branches,
Falling
201
1.000
156
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
Branches, in
Perfect symmetry
KHTP
B O TH
200
.250
Branches,
Large in
Proportion
To trunk
203
1.000
Branches, long,
Thin, and
Pointing upward,
Not outward
203
1.000
Branches,
Lower part
On trunk
195
.125
Branches,
Negligent
Treatment of
184
1.000
Branches, new
Growth
Extending
From barren
Trunk
202
.500
Branches,
Numerous on
Small trunk
202
.500
Branches,
One-dimensional,
Non-systematic
And separated
From a one
dimensional
trunk
203
1.000
157
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
KHTP
Branches,
Overemphasis
To left
B O TH
202
Branches,
Shaded
1.000
182
049
Branches,
Small on
Large trunk
200
500
Branches,
Spike-like
201
500
Branches, twoDimensional,
Club-like
With
Inadequate
Organization
203
1.000
PartiallyDrawn with
Implied
Foliage
202
1.000
With open
Distal end
13
15
12
173
.077
Branches,
Unshaded
202
1.000
Branches,
"wrapped"
In cotton"
197
1.000
158
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
K HTP
B O TH
Branches,
Wide, short,
And appearing
"cutoff"
200
1.000
Christinas tree
200
250
Crown,
Cloud-like
59
34
97
.006*
Crown,
Curlicue
186
549
Crown,
200
625
173
454
Crown,
Shaded
198
1.000
Ground,
T ra nsp ar ent ,
Roots visible
Below surface
201
250
188
302
Leaves,
Hand-like
202
1.000
Leaves, not
Connected to
Branches
203
1.000
flat
Crown, jumble
Of scribbled
Lines
Leaves,
Falling
Leaves,
Numerous
15
10
10
11
189
006*
159
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
KHTP
B O TH
Le a ve s,
Numerous and in
Great detail
203
1.000
Le a ve s,
Omitted
189
.549
Leaves,
Pointed
Sharply
Leaves, twoDimensional,
And overly
Large in
Proportion
To branches
Branches, twoDimensional
And drawn with
Excessive care
Roots,
Inadequate
Organization
Of
32
Roots, omitted,
Without
Baseline
201
1.000
200
1.000
198
.063
183
1.000
14
29
129
.033*
Roots,
Overemphasized
As they enter
Ground
198
.219
Roots,
199
1.000
shaded
160
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
Roots,
Tapering
Smoothly
Into ground
KHTP
B O TH
12
15
168
.307
Roots, thin
And poor
Contact with
Ground
201
.250
Roots,
Transparent from
Underground
198
.219
Sapling
202
.500
27
35
136
.000*
Tree,
Horizontal
Movement
202
.500
Tree,
"keyhole"
201
.500
Tree,
68
135
.000*
Tree, large
But contained
Within page
56
148
.000*
Tree, leaning
To left
200
1.000
Tree, leaning
To right
199
.375
Tree,
195
1.000
202
1.000
Scar on trunk
large
"niggs"
Tree,
Sheltering
161
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON B O TH
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Tree,
33
small
Tree, very
Large
Trunk, broadly
Based with
Diminishing
Breadth
K HTP
19
B O TH
162
.000
185
000
29
17
125
.105
21
13
164
230
Trunk, broad
With
Diminutive
Branch
Structure
195
031
Trunk,
202
1.000
Trunk,
Diminutive
With broad
Branch
Structure
203
1.000
Trunk, huge
Though not
Necessarily
Broad-based
203
1.000
Trunk, long
And narrow
203
1.000
Trunk, long
With small
Crown
193
754
Trunk, broad
With broad
Base
dead
33
162
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
K HTP
B O TH
Trunk,
Narrower at
Base than at
Higher points
202
1.000
Trunk, oneDimensional,
With
Disorganized
One-dimensional
Branches
203
1.000
Trunk, outer
Edges darkly
Drawn
Trunk, outline
Not continuous
Trunk, shaded,
Especially
If deep
18
20
21
12
177
15
148
187
043
.405
003
Trunk, short
With large
Crown
190
1.000
Trunk, very
Lightly drawn
203
1.000
Trunk, very
Small and
Slender
202
1.000
Trunk, with
Thickened or
Constricted
Areas
199
1.000
Weeping
Willow tree
201
.500
163
PERSON
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Arms,
akimbo
Arms, extended
Mechanically
And
Perpendicular
To body
B O TH
KHTP
B O TH
195
.070
196
1 .000
Arms, folded
Across chest
198
.219
Arms, held
Behind back
11
192
.0 0 1 *
Arms, held
Limp at sides
11
192
.0 0 1 *
Arms,
large
200
1 . 000
Arms,
muscular
200
.125
Arms,
omitted
16
187
.0 0 0 *
Arms, one
Longer than
Other
201
1 .000
Arms,
Outstretched
13
19
169
.377
Arms,
Reinforcement
Of
196
.070
Arms,
relaxed
13
183
.021*
Arms,
short
193
.180
164
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Arms, rigidly
Held to body
201
1. 000
Arms, thin
And frail
191
.388
Arms,
Unusually
Long
194
1.000
Arms,
201
1.000
Beard
195
.125
Belt buckle,
Emphasis of
40
153
.000*
Belt, darkly
Shaded
200
.125
Breasts,
Emphasized
13
189
.000*
22
24
10
148
.026*
Bu tt oc ks ,
Overemphasis
Upon
201
Buttons,
Emphasized or
Numerous
31
165
Chin,
Prominent
197
1.000
Chin,
Overemphasis
Upon
197
1. 000
wing-like
Breasts,
Omission of
1.000
.000*
165
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Chin,
BOTH
weak
Chinline,
Omitted
KHTP
B O TH
203
1.000
203
1.000
Clowns, witches,
And soldiers
203
Earrings,
Emphasis upon
195
1.000
.008*
Ears, as
Question marks
18
181
.000*
Ears,
28
159
.003*
omitted
Ears,
Emphasized
15
182
.001*
Ears, with
Dark dots
In area
199
.063
Eyebrows,
Elaborate
Treatment of
29
163
.000*
Eyebrows, thick
And heavy
Eyelashes,
Detail
199
.625
in
7
Eyes, drawn as
Closed or
Concealed by
Hat brim
Eyes, hollow and

Empty
15
182
197
1.000
196
.125
.000*
166
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Eyes,
B O TH
12
omitted
Eyes, periphery
Reinforced
K HTP
10
B O TH
191
.000*
189
039
Eyes,
"Picasso eye'
203
1.000
Eyes, pupils
Omitted
190
146
Eyes, two
Drawn on
Profile
203
1.000
134
000
Eyes,
Unusually
Small
199
125
Eyes, with
Wide-eyed
Stare
199
063
Face,
Shaded
199
375
Facial
Features,
Omitted
When rest
Adequately
Drawn
202
1.000
199
.375
Eyes,
Unusually
Large or
Reinforced
Facial
Features,
Overemphasized
22
41
167
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
B O TH
PRESENT
ONLY
K HTP
ABSENT
ON
B O TH
Feet, bare on
Clothed figure
199
.375
Feet,
Emphasized
200
1.000
1.000
Feet,
large
197
Feet,
omitted
12
44
139
Feet, pointed
Downward in
"V" shape
198
1.000
Feet, pointing
In opposite
Directions
.000*
22
27
14
141
.061
Feet, sharply
Pointed
203
1.000
Feet,
Unusually long
202
1.000
Feet, very
Small
13
184
.167
Female figure,
Lacking
Feminine
Contours
11
184
.057
Fingernails,
Pointed or
Reinforced
192
.146
Fingers,
198
.688
196
.016*
fisted
Fingers, long
A nd spike-like
168
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Fingers,
BO TH
omitted
KHTP
B O TH ________
22
18
158
.635
Fingers, oneDimensional and

Enclosed by
Circle
203
1.000
Fingers,
Reinforced or
Darkly shaded
10
190
.092
Fingers,
Scribbled
201
1.000
Fingers, short
And rounded
13
17
167
.584
203
1.000
203
1.000
203
1.000
203
1.000
Fingers,
Too few
Fingers,
Too many
Fingers,
Unusually
Large
Fingers,
Without hands
Hair,
Emphasis upon
44
53
15
92
Hair, heavily
Shaded
19
24
27
134
Hair, in
Disarray
Hair, long
And unshaded
.000
.779
198
.375
200
.125
169
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Hair, omitted
Or sparse
B O TH
K HTP
B O TH
13
14
172
.064
Hair, unshaded,
And enclosing
Face in viseLike fashion
200
1.000
Hands,
Concealed
In pockets
196
.008
Hands,
Covering
Pelvic region
11
192
.006
Hands,
Mitten-like
18
181
.000
Hands,
Omitted
32
13
164
.176
Hands,
Shaded
202
.500
Hands,
Swollen
203
1.000
Hands,
Unusually
Large
201
.250
Hands,
Unusually
Small
10
190
.039"
Hat on
Figure
17
175
.108
194
.109
Head,
View
back
170
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Head,
Omitted
BO TH
K HTP
B O TH
203
1.000
Head,
Unusually
Large
10
192
.002
Head,
Unusually
Small
201
.250
Head, with
Irregular
Contour
202
.500
Head,
Without
Body
13
191
.000
Hips,
Emphasized
202
.500
Knees,
Emphasis upon
200
.625
Legs, cut
Off by
Bottom
Of paper
23
177
.000
Legs, of
Unequal
Size
203
1.000
Legs,
Omitted
17
185
.001'
Legs,
Reinforcement
Of
189
.581
171
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
Q N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
K HTP
B O TH
Legs,
Rigidly held
Together
11
187
.057
Legs,
Unusually
Long
203
1 .000
203
1 .000
Legs,
Unusually
Short
Lips,
full
35
159
.0 0 0 *
Lips, full on
Male figure
15
187
.0 0 2 *
Lips,
Protrusion
Of
202
.500
199
1 .000
.250
Male figure,
Off balance
Male figure,
With heavy
Shading
201
70
56
30
48
Mouth, cupid
Bow in female
Figure
12
18
165
.361
Mouth,
Grinning
Depicted by
Wide
Upturned
Line
23
164
.022*
Midline,
Emphasized
.007*
172
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
I N D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
Mouth,
Omitted
K HTP
B O TH
12
191
000
14
156
.310
180
.003
Mouth, short,
Dark line
194
.344
Mouth,
Single line,
Unsmiling
192
.227
Mouth,
Slash line
195
.453
Mouth,
Unusually
Large
201
1.000
Mouth,
Very small
196
.289
Mouth,
Sneer
202
.500
Mouth,
open
Mouth,
Overemphasis
Upon
13
21
17
with
Movement,
Non-violent
185
10
.0 0 0
Movement,
Violent
198
.219
Muscles, overly
Emphasized
202
1.000
Mustache
201
.250
173
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
Neck, long
And thin
14
Neck,
17
K HTP
25
B O TH
158
.109
172
170
Neck, oneDimensional
199
1.000
Neck,
Shading of
197
1.000
Neck, short
And thick
198
219
Neck,
Long
199
375
187
.267
164
607
156
.000
168
000
198
688
173
690
193
754
omitted
very
Nose,
Button
Nose,
Emphasized
Nose, faint,
Shaded, or
Truncated
Nose,
15
14
19
28
omitted
24
Nose,
Phallic
And long
Nose,
Pointed
Sharply
Nose,
Triangular
14
11
174
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
KHTP
B O TH
Person,
Appearing
older than
Subject
203
1.000
Person,
Appearing
Younger
Than subject
200
1.000
Person,
Clothing
Striped
190
1.000
203
1.000
27
000
Person,
Dehumanized
Person, facing
Forward
82
82
13
Person,
Running in
Controlled
Situation
201
1.000
Person, underDressed or nude
199
.063
173
.002*
196
.125
201
1.000
Pockets,
Emphasized
Pockets, placed
At breasts
22
Posture,
Leaning
Posture,
Relaxed and
Standing
45
73
13
73
000
175
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
I N D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
K HTP
B O TH
173
000
26
171
ooi
10
194
002
57
135
000
33
153
.000*
Shoulders,
Emphasized
15
186
002*
Shoulders,
Omitted
15
184
019
197
688
179
.503
Shoulders,
Unusually
Large
193
065
Shoulders,
Unusually
Small
203
1.000
Shoulders,
Very broad
197
Snowman and
Peanut man
203
Posture,
rigid
21
Posture,
seated
Profile,
Ambivalent
Profile,
Complete
Shoes,
Emphasized
10
Shoulders,
Reinforced
Or
Hesitantly
Drawn
Shoulders,
Squared
12
.016*
1.000
176
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Stance,
Broad
B O TH
Stance,
On tiptoe
26
KHTP
B O TH
173
202
.000*
1.000
Stick figure
186
.804
Teeth,
Prominently
Presented
15
188
.001*
Tie,
Overemphasis
Upon
199
.125
Toes, on
Clothed
Figure
200
.125
Toes,
202
.500
Trouser fly,
Emphasized
23
172
.006*
Trunk,
Incompletely
Closed at
Bottom
202
1.000
Trunk,
15
189
.000*
Trunk,
Reversed
192
.774
Trunk,
201
.250
200
.625
pointed
omitted
round
Trunk,
Shaded in
Female figure
177
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON B O TH
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
Trunk, small
And tightened
Trunk,
square
Waistline,
Shaded
Heavily
0
1
0
6
K HTP
1
1
B O TH
203
1 .000
196
.125
202
.500
178
ACTIONS
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Ball
Bouncing
200
.125
Ball
Playing
203
1 .000
Being hurt
203
1 . 000
Boxing
203
1 . 000
Burning
203
1 .000
Catching
202
.500
Chopping
201
.250
Climbing
200
.125
Cooking
203
1 .000
Cutting
203
1 .000
Dancing
203
1 .000
Digging
202
.500
Diving
202
.500
Dreaming
203
1 .000
Driving
200
.125
Falling
202
.500
Falling
In love
203
1 .000
Fishing
203
1 .000
179
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Flying
200
.625
Gardening
202
.500
Hitting
202
.500
Holding
200
.125
Hosing
201
.250
Hugging
203
1.000
Jumping
12
192
.000*
Kicking
200
.125
Kite
Flying
196
.008*
Knocking
203
1. 000
Lifting
202
.500
Looking
199
.063
Mowing
10
194
.002*
Parachuting
203
Picking
197
Planting
203
Playing
Alone
13
191
Playing
Music
203
1.000
Playing with
Someone
202
.500
1. 000
.016*
1.000
.000*
180
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Pulling
203
1.000
Pushing
200
.125
Raining
203
1.000
Raking
202
.500
Reading
201
1. 000
Reclining
203
1.000
Riding
199
.063
Running
198
.219
Singing
201
.250
Shouting
203
1.000
Sitting
200
.125
Skipping
203
1. 000
Sleeping
202
.500
Smoking
203
1. 000
Standing
196
.008
Surfing
203
1. 000
Swimming
203
1. 000
Swinging
19
184
Vacuuming
203
Walking
18
184
Waning
203
. 000'
1. 000
.000'
1.000
181
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Washing
203
1.000
Waving
192
.549
Writing
202
1.000
182
STYLES
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
KHTP
B O TH
Attachment
Of two
Figures
44
154
.00 0 *
CompartmentalIzation
202
.500
Encapsulation
23
180
.000 *
Lining at
The top
203
1 . 000
Lining at the
Bottom
201
.250
Underlining
Individual
Figures
203
1 .000
183
SYMBOLS
EMOTIONAL
INDICATOR
PRESENT
ON BOTH
PRESENT
ONLY-HTP
PRESENT
ABSENT
ONLY KHTP ON BOTH
Ball
22
182
.000*
Bed
202
.500
Bikes
201
.250
Birds
10
16
10
168
.327
Butterflies
202
1. 000
Cats
202
1.000
Fire
201
1.000
Heat
201
1. 000
Jump rope
10
194
.002*
Kites
196
.008*
Ladders
202
.500
Lamps
203
1.000
Lawn
Mowers
195
.004*
Light
Bulbs
196
.289
Logs
201
.250
Moon
199
.125
Motor
cycle
202
.500
Pipe
203
1. 000
184
E M O T IO N A L
PRESENT
PRESENT
PRESENT
ABSENT
IN D IC A T O R
ON
O N L Y -H T P
ONLY
ON
B O TH
K HTP
B O TH
Rain
201
.250
Refrig
erator
203
1.000
Snow and
Other "cold'
Symbols
201
1.000
Stars
196
1.000
203
1.000
.238
Stoves
Sun
12
179
Swing in
The tree
19
180
Vacuums
Water
12
003
203
1.000
183
.359
Weapons
202
.500
"X" syndrome
202
1.000
REFERENCE
L IS T
REFERENCE LIST
Abell, S. C . , Heiberger, A. M . , & Johnson, J. E.

(1994). Cognitive evaluations of young adults by
means of human figure d r a w i n g s : An empirical
investigation of two methods. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 50(6), 900-905.
Allen, R. M. (1958). Personality Assessment Proc ed ure s.
New York: H a r p e r .
Ames,
L. B. (1987). Introduction. In R . C . Burns,

Kinetic house-tree-person d r a w i n g s . New York:
Brunne r/M az el.
Baldwin, I . T . (1964). The head-body ratio in human

figure drawings of schizophrenic and normal
adults. Journal of Projective Techniques and
Personality Assessment, 28, 393-396.
Barnouw, V. (1969). Cross-cultural research with the
house-tree-person t e s t . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer
(Eds.), Advances in the house-tree-person
technique: Variations and applications. Los
A n g e l e s : Western Psychological ser v i c e s .
Blain, G. H ., Bergn er , R. M ., Lewis, M. L ., &
Goldstein, M. A. (1981) . The use of objectively
scoreable house-tree-person indicators to
establish child abuse. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 37, 667-673.
Bodwin, R. F . , & Bruck, M. (1960). The adaptation and
validation of the draw-a-person test as a measure
of self c o n c ept . Journal of Clinical Psychology,
16, 427-429.
Bradfield, R. H . (1964). The predictive validity of
children's d ra w i n g s . California Journal of
Educational Research, 15, 166-174.
186
187
Brooke, S. L. (1996). A therapist's guide to art

therapy a s s ess me nt: Tools of the trade.
Springfield, IL: Charles C T h o m a s .
Brown, F. (1958). Adult case study: Clinical validation
of the house-tree-person drawings of an adult case
(chronic ulcerative colitis with ile o s t o m y ) . In
E.F. Hammer (Ed.), The clinical application of
projective drawings (pp. 261-275). Springfield,
IL: Charles C T h o m a s .
Buck,
J. N. (1948) . The H-T-P t e s t . Journal of Clinical

Buck,
J. N . (1949). The h-t-p t e s t : Illustrative cases,

a quality and quantity m a n u a l . Journal of Clinical
Buck,
J. N . (1950, March 31 - April 2). Administration

and interpretation of the H-T-P test. Proceedings
of the H-T-P workshop held at Veterans
Administration Hospital, Richmond 19, V a . Los
A n g e l e s : Western Psychological S e r v i c e s .
Buck,
J. N. (1951) . The quality and quantity of the

H - T - P . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 7, 352-356.
Buck,
J. N . (1966). The house-tree-person technique:

Revised m a n u a l . Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological
Se rv i c e s .
Buck,
J. N . (1969). The use of the H-T-P in the

investigation of intra-familial co nf l i c t . In J.N.
Buck & E.F. Hammer (Ed.), Advances in the housetree-person technique: Variations and
applications. Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological
se rv ice s.
Buck,
J. N. (1992). The house-tree-person projective

drawing technique: Manual and interpretive guide
(Rev. e d . ). Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological
Se rv i c e s .
Burns, R. C. (1982) . Self-growth in f am ili es . New York:

Brunner/Mazel.
188
Burns, R. C. (1987). Kinetic house-tree-person

drawings. New York: Brun ne r/M aze l.
Burns, R. C . , & Kaufman, S. H. (1970). Kinetic family
drawing (K-F-D): An introduction to understanding
children through kinetic dra w i n g s . New York:
Br un ner /Ma ze l.
Burns, R. C ., & Kaufman, S. H . (1972). A c t i o n s , styles,
and symbols in kinetic family drawings (K-F-D) : An
interpretative manual. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Buros, 0. K. (1970). Personality tests and r e v i e w s .
Highland Park, N J : The Gryphon P r e s s .
Burton A. & Sjoberg, B. (1964). The diagnostic validity
of human figure drawings in sch iz oph re nia . Journal
of Psychology, 57, 3-18.
Cho, M. (1987). The validity of the kinetic family
drawings as a measure of self-concept and
pa rent/child relationships among Chinese children
in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Andrews University, Berrien Spri ng s, M I .
Chodorow, N . J. (1999). The po w e r of f e e l i n g s . New
H a v e n : Yale University P r e s s .
Cohen, F. W . , & Phelps, R. E. (1985). Incest markers in
children's artwork. The Arts in Ps ychotherapy,
12(4), 265-283.
Chuah, V. N . (1992) . Kinetic family dra wings of
Chinese-American children. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Andrews University, Berrien Springs,
MI.
Cummings, J. A. (198 6).
The assessment of child and
adolescent personality.
New York: Guilford P r e s s .
Davis, C . J., & Hoopes, J. L. (1975). Comparison of
house-tree-person drawings of young deaf and
hearing children. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 39(1), 28-33.
189
Deabler, H. L. (1969). The H-T-P in group testing and

as a screening device. In J.N. Buck & E .F.
Hammer (Eds.), Advances in the house-tree-person
technique: Variations and ap plications. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Deren, S. (1975). An empirical evaluation of the
validity of the draw-a-family t e s t . Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 31, 542-54 6.
Devore, J. E . , & Fryrear, J. L. (1976). Analysis of
juvenile delinquents' hole drawing responses on
the tree figure of the house-tree-person
t e c h n i q u e . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(3),
731-736.
DiLeo, J.H. (1970). Young children and their dr aw i n g s .
New York: Br unner/Mazel.
DiLeo, J.H. (1973). Children's dra wings as diagnostic
aids. New York: Brunner /Ma zel .
Doorbar, R.R. (1967).
Psychological testing of
tra nss ex ual s: A brief report of results from the
wechsler adult intelligence scale, the thematic
apperception test, and the house-tree-person t e s t .
Transactions of the N e w York Academy of Sci ences,
29(4), 455-462.
Elin,
N ., & Nucho, A. 0. (1979). The use of kinetic

family drawing as a diagnostic tool in assessing
the child's self-concept. Art Psychotherapy, 6,
241-247.
Evans, R. B ., & Marmorston, J. (1963). Psychological

test signs of brain damage in cerebral
thrombosis. Psychological Reports, 12, 915-930.
Exner, J. E . (1962). A comparison of the human figure
drawings of psychoneurotics, character
disturbances, normals, and subjects experiencing
experimentally-induced f e a r . Journal of Projective
Techniques, 26, 392-397.
Exner, J. E. (1974).
The Rorschach comprehensive
system (Vol. 1). New York: John Wiley & S o n s .
190
Exner, J. E. (1983).
Rorschach assessment. In I.B.
Weiner (Ed.), Clinical methods in ps y c h o l o g y (2nd
e d . ). New York: John Wiley & S o n s .
Exner, J. E. (1993).
The Rorschach comprehensive
system (Vol.l: Basic foundations (3rd ed.). New
York: John Wiley & S o n s .
Fine,
R. (1979). A history of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s . New Y o r k :

Columbia University P r e s s .
Freud, A. (1936). The ego and the mechanisms of

defenses. New York: International University
Pr e s s .
Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of d r e a m s . V o l s . 4
and 5 of The standard edition of the complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud. L o n d o n :
Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1912). The dynamics of transference. Vol.
12 of The standard edition of the complete
ps yc hologica1 works of Sigmund Freud. L o n d o n :
Hogarth.
Fukunishi, I., Mikami, N ., & Kikuchi, M. (1997).
Alexithymic characteristics in responses to the
synthetic house-tree-person (HTP) drawing t e s t .
Perceptual and Mo tor Skills, 85, 939-942.
Gilbert, J. (1969). Clinical psychological tests in
psychiatric and medical practice. Springfield, I L :
Charles C . T h o m a s .
Goldstein, A. P . , & Rawn, M. L. (1957). The validity of
interpretative signs of aggression in the drawing
of the human f i g u r e . Journal of Clinical
Gregory, S. A. (1992).
A validation and comparative
study of kinetic family drawings of native
American children. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Andrews University, Berrien Springs,
MI.
191
Groth-Marnat, G . ,& Roberts,

L. (1998).
Human figure
drawings and house tree person drawings as
indicators of self-esteem: A quantitative
approach. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
5 4 (2), 219-222.
Gurvitz, M. (1951). The dynamics of psychological
testing. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Hackbarth, S. G ., Murphy, H . D ., & McQuary, J. P.
(1991). Identifying sexually abused children by
using kinetic family d r a w i n g s . Elementary School
Guidance & Counseling, 25, 255-260.
Halpern, F. (1965). Diagnostic methods in childhood
d i s o r d e r s . In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of
clinical ps ych ol ogy (pp. 381-408). New York:
McGraw H i l l .
Hammer, E . F. (1953a). An investigation of sexual
symbolism: A study of H-T-Ps of eugenically
sterilized sub je c t s . Journal of Projective
Techniques, 17, 401-413.
Hammer, E . F. (1953b). Frustration-aggression
hypothesis extended to socio-racial a r e a s .
Psychiatric Quarterly, 21, 597-607.
Hammer, E . F. (1954a). Comparison of H-T-Ps of rapists
and p e d o p h i l e s . Journal of Projective Techniques,
18, 346-354.
Hammer, E. F. (1954b). An experimental study of
symbolism on the bender g e s tal t. Journal of
Projective Techniques, 18, 335-345.
Hammer, E . F. (1958). The clinical application of
projective dra wings. Springfield, I L : Charles C
Thomas.
Hammer, E . F. (1964) . The house-tree-person (H-T-P)
clinical research m a n u a l . Los A n g e l e s : Western
Psychological S e r v i c e s .
192
Hammer, E. F. (1965). Acting out and its prediction by

projective drawing a s s e ssm en t. In L. Abt & S.
Weissman (Eds.), Acting out (pp. 228-319). New
Y o r k : Grune & S tra t t o n .
Hammer, E . F. (1969). The use of the H-T-P in criminal
c o u r t : Acting o u t . In J. N . Buck & E .F. Hammer
(Eds.), Advances in house-tree-person techniques:
Variations and applications (pp. 267-295). Los
Hammer, E. F. (1997).
Advances in pro jective drawing
interpretation. Springfield, IL: Charles C T h o m a s .
Handler, L . , & Reyher, J. (1964). The effects of stress
on the draw-a-person t e s t . Journal of Consulting
Haworth, M . , & Rabin, A. I . (1960). Miscellaneous
t e c h niq ues . In A.I. Rabin & M. Haworth (Eds.),
Projective techniques with children. New York:
Grune & S tr att on.
Holzberg, J. D . , & Wexler, M. (1950). The validity of
human form drawings as a measure of personality
d e v i a t i o n . Journal of Projective Techniques, 14,
343-361.
Hulse, W. C . (1951). The emotionally disturbed child
draws his family. Quarterly Journal of Child
Behavior, 3, 152-174.
Hulse, W. C . (1952). Child conflict expressed through
family dr aw i n g s . Journal of Projective
Techniques, 16, 66-7 9.
Jacks, I . (1969). The clinical application of the h-t-p
in criminological set t i n g s . In J . N . Buck & E.F.
technique: Variations and ap pl ications. Los
Johnson, J. H. (1973). Bender-Gestalt constriction as
an indicator of depression in psychotic p a t i e n t s .
Journal of Personality Assessment, 37, 53-55.
193
Jolles, I. A. (1964).
A catalogue for the qualitative
interpretation of the house-tree-person (H-T-P) .
Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological S e r v i c e s .
Jolles, I. A. (1969). The use of the H-T-P in a school
setting. In J. N. Buck & E.F. Hammer (Eds.),
Advances in house-tree-person techniques:
Variations and applications (pp. 223-243). Los
Jolles, I . A. (1971). A catalogue for the qualitative
interpretation of the house-tree-person (H-T-P).
Los A n g e l e s : Western Psychological S e r v i c e s .
Jung,
C . G. (1954). The practice of p s y c h o t h e r a p y . New

York: Pantheon.
Kahn,
M. (2002). Basic Freud, psychoanalytic thought

for the 21st century. New York: Basic B o o k s .
Kaufman, B ., & Wohl, A. (1992). Casualties of

childhood: A developmental perspective on sexual
abuse using pr ojective dr aw i n g s . New York:
Brunner/Mazel.
Klein, M. (1963). E nvy and gratitude and other w o r k s .
New York: D e l t a .
K n o f f , H. M . , & Prout, H . T . (1985). Kinetic drawing
system for family and s c h o o l : A h a n d b o o k . Los
A n g e l e s : Western Psychological S er v i c e s .
Koch,
C . (1952).
Stratton.
The tree test. New York:
Grune &
Kokonis, N . D. (1972). Body image disturbance in

schizophrenia: A study of arms and feet. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 36, 573-575.
Koppitz, E . M. (1966). Emotional indicators on human
figure drawings of c h i l d r e n : A validation study.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22, 313-315. New
York: Grune and Stratton.
Koppitz, E. M. (1968) . Psychological evaluation of
children's human figure dr awi ng s. New York: Grune
and Stratton.
194
Korner, A. F. (1965). Theoretical considerations

concerning the scope and limitations of projective
techniques. In B.I. Murstein (Ed.), Handbook of
projective techniques (pp. 24-26). New York: Basic
Books.
Kuhlman, T . L . , & Bieliauskas, V. J. (1976).
A
comparison of Black and White adolescents on the
H-T-P. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 728731.
Lakin, M. (1956). Certain formal characteristics of
human figure drawings by institutionalized aged
and by normal children. Journal of Counseling
Landisberg, S. (1969). The use of the H-T-P in a mental
hygiene clinic for children. In J.N. Buck & E.F.
technique: Variations and app li cat io ns. Los
Levine, A . , & Sapolsky, A. (1969). The use of the H-T-P
as an aid in the screening of hospitalized
p a t i e n t s . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer (Eds.),
Advances in the house-tree-person t e c hni qu e:
Variations and appl ic ati ons . Los A n g e l e s : Western
Levine, M . , & Galanter, E . H . (1953). A note on the
"tree and trauma" interpretation in the H - T - P .
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1 7, 74-75.
Levy,
S. (1950). Figure drawing as a projective t e s t .

In L.E. Abt & L. Beliak (Eds.), Projective
psyc ho log y (pp. 257-297). New York: K n o p f .
Levy,
S. (1958). Projective figure d r a w i n g . In E.F.

Hammer (Ed.), The clinical application of
projective drawings, (pp. 83-112, 135-161).
Springfield, IL: Charles C T h o m a s .
Machover, K. (1949). Personality projection in the

drawing of the human figure. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. T h o m a s .
195
Machover, K. (1951). Drawings of the human f i g u r e : A

method of personality investigation. In H.H.
Anderson & G. Anderson (Eds.), An introduction
to projective techniques (pp. 341-369) . Englewood
C l i f f s , N J : Pr entice-Hall.
Machover, K. (1953). Human figure drawings of children.
Journal of Projective Techniques, 17, 85-91.
Machover, K. (1958). Adolescent case study: A disturbed
g i r l . In E.F. Hammer (Ed.), The clinical
application of projective drawings (pp. 130-134).
Springfield, IL: Charles C. T h o m a s .
Malchiodi, C . A. (1998). Understanding children's
dr aw i n g s . New York: Guilford P r e s s .
M a r z o l f , S. S., & Kirchner,
J. H. (1970).
Characteristics of house-tree-person drawings by
college men and w o m e n . Journal of Projective
Techniques and Personality Ass e s s m e n t , 34, 138145.
Marzolf, S. S., & Kirchner,
J. H .(1972).House-treeperson drawings and personality t r a i t s . Journal of
Personality A s s es sm ent , 36, 148-165.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality.
Y o r k : Harper and R o w .
New
McElhaney, M. (1969). Clinical psychological assessment

of the human figure drawing. Springfield, I L :
Charles C Thomas.
McPhee, J. P . , & Wegner, K. W. (1976). Kinetic-familydrawing styles and emotionally disturbed childhood
b e h a v i o r . Journal of Personality A s s e s s m e n t ,
40(5), 487-491.
Michal-Smith, H. & Morgenstern, M. (1969). The use of
the H-T-P with the mentally retarded child in a
hospital c l i n i c . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer
technique: Variations and applications. Los
196
Morena, D. (1981).
The healthy drawing.
In G. GrothMarnat & D. Morena (Eds.), Handbook of
psychological ass e s s m e n t : A practical m a n u a l .
Unpublished manuscript, pp. 61-7 6.
Mundy, J. (1972). The use of projective techniques with
children. In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Manual of child
psychopathology (pp. 7 91-819). New York: McGrawHill.
Mursell, G. R. (1969). The use of the H-T-P with the
mentally d ef i c i e n t . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer
technique: Variations and ap plications. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological S e r v i c e s .
Neale, E . L ., & Ro s a l , M. L . (1993). What can art
therapists learn from the research on projective
drawing techniques for children?
A review of the
li te rature. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 20, 37-49.
O'Brien, R. P . , & Patton, W. F. (1974). Development of
an objective scoring method for the Kinetic Family
Drawing. Journal of Personality As s e s s m e n t , 58,
156-164.
Palmer, L . , Farrar, A. R . , Valle, M . , Ghahary, N .,
Panella, M ., & Degraw, D . (2000). An investigation
of the clinical use of the house-tree-person
projective drawings in the psychological
evaluation of child sexual abuse. Child
Maltreatment, 5(2), 169-175.
Piotrowski, Z . (1957).
Macmillan.
Perceptanalysis. New York:
Pr o u t , H. T . (1983). School psychologists and socialemotional assessment tech ni que s: Patterns in

training and u s e . School Psychology Review, 12,
377-383.
Reynolds, C. R. (1978). A quick-scoring guide to the
interpretation of children's kinetic family
drawings (K-F-D). Psychology in the Schools, 15,
489-492.
197
Reznikoff, M . , & Nicholas, A. (1958). An evaluation of

the human figure drawing indicators of paranoid
pathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 20,
395-397.
Reznikoff, M. A . , & Reznikoff, H. R. (1956). The family
drawing test: A comparative study of children's
dr aw i n g s . Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12, 167169.
Rodgers, P. J. (1992). A correlational-developmental
study of sexual symbols, actions, and themes in
children's kinetic family and human figure
d r a w i n g s . Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI.
Schildkrout, M. S., Shenker, I . R . , & Sonnenblick, M.
(1972). Human figure drawings in adolescence. New
York: B r u n n er/ Ma zel .
Schultz, D . , & Schultz, S. E . (1998). Theories of
personality. Pacific Grove, CA: B r o o k s / C o l e .
Shaw,
J. (1992). A developmental study on the kinetic

family dra wings for a nonclinic Black child
population in the midwestern region of the United
S t a t e s . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Andrews
University, Berrien Springs, M I .
Shearn, C . R . , & Russell, K. R. (1969). Use of the

family drawing as a technique for studying parentchild inter act io n. Journal of Projective
Techniques and Personality As s es sme nt, 33, 34-44.
Shneidman, E. S. (1958). Some relationships between
thematic and drawing m a t e r i a l s . In E.F. Hammer
(Ed.), The clinical application of p roj ective
dra wings (pp. 620-627). Springfield, IL: Charles C
Thomas.
Sims,
C . A. (1974) . Kinetic family drawings and their

family relations indicator. Journal of Clinical
198
Thompson, L. V. (1975). Kinetic family drawings of

adolescents (Doctoral dissertation, CSPP, San
Fran, 1975). Dissertation Abstracts I nternational,
3 6 (06 ), 3077.
Tokuda, Y . (1980). Theory and practice of image art
psychotherapy. Confinia Psychiatrica, 2 3 ( 4 ), 193208.
Urban, W. H. (1963). The draw-a -person catalogue for
interpretative a n a l y s i s . Los A n g e l e s : Western
Van Hutton, V. (1994). House-tree-person and draw-aperson as measures of abuse in chi l d r e n : A
quantitative scoring system. Odessa, F L :
Psychological Assessment R e so urc es.
Vass,
Z . (1998).
The inner formal structure of the
h-t-p dra wi n g s : An exploratory study. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 54, 611-619.
Waehner, T . S. (1946). Interpretation of spontaneous

drawings and p a i n t i n g s . Genetic Psychology
M o n o g r a p h s , 33, 3-70.
Wenck, L. S. (1977). House-tree-person d r a w i n g s : An
illustrated diagnostic h a n d b o o k . Los A n g e l e s :
Western Psychological Se rvi ces .
West,
M. M. (1998).
Meta-analysis of studies assessing
the efficacy of projective techniques in
discriminating child sexual a b u s e . Child Abuse &
Neglect, 22(11), 1151-1166.
Wolk,
R. L. (1969). Projective drawings (H-T-P) of aged

p e o p l e . In J.N. Buck & E.F. Hammer (Eds.),
Advances in the house-tree-person tech niq ue :
Variations and app lications. Los A n g e l e s : Western
Psychological S erv i c e s .
Wysocki, B. A . , & Whitney, E. (1965). Body image of

crippled children as seen in draw-a-person test
behavior. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 21, 4 99504 .
199
Zimmerman, J . , & Garfinkle, L. (1942). Preliminary

study of the art productions of adult psychotics.
Psychiatric Quar ter ly, 16, 313-318.
V I T A
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND:
1972:
Bachelor of Science
Ferris State University
Majored in Data Processing
1994:
Master of Arts
Andrews University
Maj ored in Community Counseling
2003:
Andrews University
Majored in Counseling Psychology
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT:
1972-1976,
1985-2001:
Nineteen years in the computer field as a

computer programmer/analyst, working in
Michigan and Indiana
2000-2001:
Limited licensed psychologist in a private

practice in Michigan
2001-2002:
Psychology intern at a hospital in

Illinois for the doctoral internship
200

A Comparison of The Emotional Indicators On The House-Tree-Person

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Comparison of The Emotional Indicators On The House-Tree-Person

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Andrews University

Digital Commons @ Andrews University

A Comparison of the Emotional Indicators on the

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations

Thank you for your interest in the

Andrews University Digital Library

Please honor the copyright of this document by

A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON

UMI Number: 3098164

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON

APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE:

D e a n X School of Ed^cat ion

A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON

Dr. Nancy J. Carbonell

ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH

Title: A COMPARISON OF THE EMOTIONAL INDICATORS ON THE

Denise Ann Stoddard

Name and degree of faculty chair: Nancy J. Carbonell,

Date completed: August 2003

author of the Kinetic-Family-

Drawing, -has devised a projective test called the

He has taken the

House-Tree-Person projective technique and changed the

In Burns's book on the K-H-T-P

he claimed that his drawing gives a better clinical picture

research that compares the two tests for clinical

came from one university in Michigan and one in Illinois.

meaning that they were not

Emotional indicators were extracted from the

drawings, and then the indicators were analyzed using the

and 108 indicators were found to be

There were 74 indicators that were found

significantly more often on the H-T-P than on the K-H-T-P.

The H-T-P had

indicators in the categories of general drawing

The K-H-T-P had

indicators in all of those categories and also in actions,

The H-T-P had more than twice as many

The category that had the most

indicators for both tests was the house,

with 56% of the

indicators on the H-T-P and 32% on the K - H - T - P .

H-T-P having more than twice as many indicators as the

it is shown to be a stronger projective technique

in eliciting information about the subject.

the tests are not interchangeable.

test has been shown to have merit,

and they could both be

used in a psychological assessment battery to add the most

REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E .....................

Draw-A-Family Drawing ....................

Description of the R e s e a r c h ..............

PRESENTATION OF THE DATA

Demographic Data of the S a m p l e . . . . . .

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND

Checklist for Emotional Indicators

Sample Distribution by Gender by

Sample Distribution by Age Range

Data on Emotional Indicators by

Data on Emotional Indicators by

Emotional Indicators Found Significantly

Emotional Indicators Found Significantly